Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 324 (KAR)

Anand v. State Of Karnataka And Another

2020-02-04

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the complaint registered against the petitioner in Woman Police Station, Crime No.310/2015 dated 13.03.2015 (C.C.No.989/2015) arising there from for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504 r/w 149 of IPC. 2. The complaint was filed by one Nisha W/o: Prashant Mohite, who is the wife of petitioners wifes brother. The complaint was filed as against the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the said Nisha, who was also the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the petitioner as also against the sister-in-laws of the complainant including the wife of the petitioner and in the said complaint it is alleged that the petitioner had indulged in various acts which amounted to offences under Sections 498(A), 323, 504 r/w 149 of IPC. 3. Having perused the copy of the complaint, it is seen that the complainant has specifically named the petitioner in the said complaint and made specific allegation against him. The only reason why the petitioner seeks for quashing of the complaint is that the complainant is not a resident of Belagavi and she was not residing in the house of Smt. Nisha and complainant in fact has residing at Basarikatti and therefore the complainant has filed a false complaint against him. In support thereof, the petitioner has produced Election Identity Card, Ration Card and Passport to see that he is residing in Basarikatti. Election Identity Card was issued in the year 1995, Ration card was issued in the year 2009 and passport was issued in the year 2007. Be that as it may, the petition is only filed by the petitioner and not by his wife Smt. Urmila W/O; Anand Basarikatti, who is the sister-in-law of the complainant, who is stated to be residing with the petitioner. 4. If the contention of the petitioner is to be believed that he is residing in Basarikatti with his family then Smt. Urmila W/O; Anand Basarikatti who is wife would also have filed a similar petition contending that she was not residing in Belagavi. Though the present petition has been filed in the year 2016, no similar petition has been by Smt. Urmila W/o: Anand Basarikatti. Admittedly, Sri Anand Basarikatti and Smt. Urmila Basarikatti are living together. 5. Though the present petition has been filed in the year 2016, no similar petition has been by Smt. Urmila W/o: Anand Basarikatti. Admittedly, Sri Anand Basarikatti and Smt. Urmila Basarikatti are living together. 5. Learned HCGP submits that the proceedings in Crime No.10/2015 in C.C.No.989/2015 are now at advanced stage, trial has already commenced and it is posted for cross-examination of CW.1 on 15.02.2020. 6. The charge sheet implicates the petitioner, the petitioner has not been able to conclusively prove that he was not present during the time when the offence took place. The trial having already commenced, there are no grounds which are made out by the petitioner at this stage for exercise of inherent powers of this Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. 7. Learned HCGP relies upon the decision of this Court in Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in ( 2008) 8 SCC 781 more particularly paragraph No.38 which is re-produced hereunder for easy reference; 38. This Court in the latest decision has held that where investigation was completed, charge-sheet had been filed and charges are framed, the High Court should not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability of offences to sustain the allegations made in the complaint which is the function of the trial Court. 8. On the basis of the above, it is contended that the charges having been framed and trial having commenced, the trial Court would be the appropriate Court to consider the matter on merits and at this stage there is no need for this Court to embark upon the enquiry and quash the proceedings exercising its extraordinary inherent powers. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that there was an order of stay which was granted in favour of the petitioner on 30.05.2017 and therefore the trial Court could not have proceeded with against the petitioner. 10. A perusal of the order dated 30.05.2017, indicates that the interim order of stay granted was only till appearance of respondent No.2, respondent No.2 entered appearance on 03.07.2017. Thus the interim order of stay got vacated thereafter on said appearance of respondent No.2. Therefore, the matter was listed several times, no application for extension of stay was made by the petitioner. Therefore, there was no embargo on the trial Court to proceed with the trial. Thus the interim order of stay got vacated thereafter on said appearance of respondent No.2. Therefore, the matter was listed several times, no application for extension of stay was made by the petitioner. Therefore, there was no embargo on the trial Court to proceed with the trial. Hence, this contention of the petitioner is also liable to be rejected. 11. In view of the above observations, this is not a fit case for this Court to exercise the powers to quash the proceedings set in motion which are already at the trial stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending IA.No.1/2019 is also dismissed.