Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 378 (KAR)

K. P. MALLESH v. STATE (TOWN P. S. , RANEBENNUR)

2017-02-07

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2017
ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for Respondent No.1. The Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 remained absent and there is no representation on his behalf. Perused the records. 2. As could be seen from the records, Respondent No.2 herein has lodged a complaint against four accused persons including these two petitioners, who are arraigned as Accused Nos. 2 & 3. The complainant lodged a complaint before the JMFC, Ranebennur, which appears to have been referred to the jurisdictional police for investigation. On reference, the Ranebennur police have registered a case in Crime No.145/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 498A, 307, 323, 504 and 342 of IPC and investigated the matter and ultimately filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 342 of IPC. The learned Magistrate after going through the contents of the charge sheet has taken cognizance and issued process against the accused. The said order is called in question before this court. The accused, in this petition, have sought for quashing of the said proceedings before the trial Court. 3. As could be seen from the records, presently the case is posted before the trial Court for hearing with regard to framing of charges. At the outset, the charge sheet papers show that it is the allegation made by the complainant that she is the wife of Accused No.1, Accused Nos. 2 & 3 are the father and mother of Accused No.1. the 4th accused is a well-wisher of Accused No.3. It is seen that the marriage between Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 was taken place on 10.12.2010 and she had gone to the matrimonial home for performing her obligation as a dutiful wife of Accused No.1. It is stated that petitioners1 to 3 started ill-treating and harassing her and even they did not allow her to talk with her parents and they are making lot of allegations against her. In this background, it is alleged that on 30.04.2011, Accused No.1 assaulted her and thereafter, she was weeping and sleeping in the house. On the next day at about 4.30 a.m., the petitioners, who came from Bengaluru have also assaulted her and threatened her with dire consequences and due to the assault, she lost her consciousness. In this background, it is alleged that on 30.04.2011, Accused No.1 assaulted her and thereafter, she was weeping and sleeping in the house. On the next day at about 4.30 a.m., the petitioners, who came from Bengaluru have also assaulted her and threatened her with dire consequences and due to the assault, she lost her consciousness. On the morning of the said day and Accused No.1 took her in Santro Car and left her alone in Ranebennur Bus Stand by saying that the relationship between him and her, has come to an end. Again it is stated that on 31.10.2011 the accused went to the house of the complainant and assaulted her and her parents and threatened them with dire consequences of killing them. On these allegations the police have recorded the statement of some of the witnesses. 4. Of course, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the statements of one Smt. Manju, Sri. Vittal Rao and Smt. Saroja, who are the neighbours of the complainant residing in Ranebennur, wherein they have stated that nothing happened on 13.10.2011. But with reference to the incident on 30.04.2011 is concerned, nothing is forthcoming about the specific allegation of assault by Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and there is nothing on record to show that such allegations made in the complaint are false and they do not constitute any offence against the accused persons. 5. There is no reason at this stage to totally eradicate the complaint averments. It is a recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that, if any allegations are made, the court has to examine whether those allegations are specific or if those allegations are translated into evidence, they would constitute any offence under any penal law for the time being in force. If the answer is ‘Yes’, it should be further tested as to whether those allegations are false or whether those allegations are made without any basis and those allegations are made in order to lay a false claim against the accused persons, such complaint is filed. Though the learned counsel has drawn my attention by producing the document to show that the petitioners have already filed a case before the civil court and the same has been dismissed for want of proof of relationship. Though the learned counsel has drawn my attention by producing the document to show that the petitioners have already filed a case before the civil court and the same has been dismissed for want of proof of relationship. But the learned counsel also admit that the said judgment has been appealed and the appeal is still pending and there is no logical conclusion in the said observation made by the trial Court. In the above circumstances, the said document, even if it is produced, it cannot be relied upon at this stage when it is not a concluded proceeding. Therefore, at this stage, when the court is not in a position to say with all certainty that the allegations made against the petitioners are false, the court should not normally interfere with the proceedings pending before a criminal court. It is also a well-propounded principle of law that, if any allegations are made and if it is countered by the other side, liberty should be given to the complainant to establish the allegations before the court. Even without providing any opportunity if the proceedings are quashed, it amounts violation of principle of natural justice and virtually it amounts to acquittal of the accused persons without there being any trial. 6. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any strong reason to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the entire proceedings. However, the petitioners, if need arises, can make an application before the trial Court for their discharge. In that eventuality, the trial court is directed to consider the materials on record and pass appropriate and suitable order in accordance with law. 7. With the above observation, the petition stands dismissed.