Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 619 (KAR)

VENKOBA SAMPATHRAJ MAKASHI v. STATE

2017-03-20

B.A.PATIL

body2017
ORDER : B.A. Patil, J. This petition has been filed by petitioner/accused Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the further proceedings pending in C.C.No.401/2009 on the file of JMFC, Shahapur. 2. Brief matrix of the case as per the complaint are that, the complainant-wife of accused No. 1 filed a complaint on 06.06.2009 alleging that she got married to accused No. 1 about five years back and was residing along with him and her father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law at Aldal village. After two years of the marriage, accused/petitioners started ill-treating and harassing the complainant for demand of cash and gold and also used to abuse in filthy language. It is further alleged that on 30.05.2009 at about 6.00 p.m., when she was in her parental house, her husband, petitioner No.1/accused No.1 came and abused her and also asked her as to why she is not bringing gold and money and also assaulted the complainant with hands. It is also alleged that other accused persons also subjected her to cruelty and harassment and pressurized to bring dowry. It is also alleged that accused No. 1 has entered into a second marriage with one Laxmi. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered against the accused/petitioners. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the complainant is an adamant nature lady, she never discharged her duty as an obedient wife and has filed a false complaint. He would also contend that the complainant has filed two similar complaints by making similar allegations one in Crime No. 39/2009 of Gogi Police Station and another in Crime No. 123/2009 of Shorapur Police Station which is against the principles of law. He would also contend that the allegation made in the complaint at Annexure-A and complaint attached to Annexure-D are similar in nature but the Trial Court has taken the cognizance on such complaint which would amount to double jeopardy. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the said petition. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State would contend that the alleged incident has taken place in two parts, they are different and there are distinct acts of each of the accused. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the said petition. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State would contend that the alleged incident has taken place in two parts, they are different and there are distinct acts of each of the accused. As such, the principles of double jeopardy will not be applicable to the present facts of the case. He would also contend that there is no similarity in the allegations made in two complaints. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have gone through the contents of the complaints and other material produced along with the petition. 7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that on similar facts two complaints have been filed by the complainant, but on perusal of records, it would indicate that the allegations made in each of the complaints are different. So far as Annexure-A is concerned, it is as against accused/petitioners. The allegation in the second complaint annexed to Annexure-D is against the same accused persons. In the complaint at Annexure-D she has alleged that the accused persons i.e., father-in-law and mother-in-law used to ill-treat and harass her not only for demand of gold and money, but also they used to tell that she has not begotten any child. They have assaulted and abused saying that if she is not going to bring gold, accused No.1 will give divorce to her. In material particulars, the facts are different. 8. Be that as it may. Even if the accused/petitioners are apprehending that there are two cases on the basis of the two complaints, they can be adjudicated by the same Court by keeping them on one and the same day so as to avoid overlapping of the facts. Leave apart this. As per Section 219 of Cr.P.C., three offences of same kind within a year may be charged together and they may be heard and decided by the same Court. When the law provides opportunity to hold the trial as stated above, no prejudice is going to be caused to the accused/petitioners. On perusal of the contents of the complaints, it would indicate that they are of two different facts and circumstances, therefore, it cannot be held that it amounts to double jeopardy. When the law provides opportunity to hold the trial as stated above, no prejudice is going to be caused to the accused/petitioners. On perusal of the contents of the complaints, it would indicate that they are of two different facts and circumstances, therefore, it cannot be held that it amounts to double jeopardy. Looking from any angle, there are no good grounds made out by the petitioners so as to quash the proceedings. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petition stands dismissed. 10. In view of disposal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2017 filed for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is rejected.