Karnataka High Court
Sharanamma And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 8 December, 2021
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201192/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SHARANAMMA W/O DEVINDRAPPA
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O MARTUR, TQ. SHAHABAD
DIST. KALABURAGI
2. VIDYA W/O GANAPATI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O C/O GANAPATI R.V. BIDAP
LAW COLLEGE, MANNALLI ROAD, BIDAR
3. GANESH @ GANAPATI
S/O TIPPANNAPPA
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER
R/O R.V. BIDAPP LAW COLLEGE
MANNALLI ROAD, BIDAR
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R.V.NADAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE
WOMEN POLICE STATION
KALABURAGI, REPRESENTED BY
ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI
2. BHUVANESHWARI
W/O AMARESH SAMPANGI
2
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O HOSA HEBBAL, TQ. KALAGI
DIST. KALABURAGI-585107
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SHIVANAGOUDA V. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR
IN CRIME NO.109/2021 OF KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN POLICE
STATION, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 494, 506, 498-A, 504, 323
R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I-
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GULBARGA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State. The
learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying this Court to quash the FIR in Crime
No.109/2021 registered by Kalaburagi City Women
Police Station, Kalaburagi City, for the offences
punishable under Sections 109, 494, 506, 498-A, 504,
323 r/w Section 149 of IPC, pending on the file of I-
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gulbarga, produced at
Annexure-A.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the
complainant in her complaint dated 29.04.2011 stated
that her marriage with accused No.1 is love marriage
and the same was performed on 29.03.2017. In the said
wedlock, she gave birth to a male child. The complainant
and her husband were residing at Kalaburagi in a rented
house. The husband of the complainant pretended for
some time that he is looking after her very well and
thereafter he continued harassment and subjected her
for assault and he used to come in intoxicated state and
used to abuse her and assault her. It is also alleged in
the complaint that after she gave birth to child, when
she came to her matrimonial home, her husband,
mother-in-law, sister-in-law, husband of her sister-in-
law and senior aunt of her husband used to abuse her in
filthy language and assaulted her and subjected her for
dowry harassment and demanded to bring the money.
They have also caused life threat to her and her child.
They were also instigating her husband and all of them
have joined in performing the second marriage to her
husband on 29.06.2020 with another woman. When she
questioned her husband with regard to the second
marriage, her husband told her that she can take any
action. As a result, the complainant and her child have
no shelter. Based on the said complaint, the case has
been registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 109, 494, 506, 498-A, 504, 323 r/w Section
149 of IPC.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would submit that the petitioners were not
residing along with the complainant and her husband
and they are residing at Martur and Bidar respectively.
The learned counsel in support of his contention has
relied upon the Service Certificate at Annexure-B which
shows that petitioner No.3 is working as Lecturer in the
college at Bidar and also relied on copy of gas book at
Annexure-C which shows that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are
residing in Bidar. The learned counsel in support of his
contention relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Seenivasan vs. State by
Inspector of Police and another reported in (2019)8
SCC 642 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed
about quashment of proceedings against near relatives
of husband who reside at different addresses than
matrimonial home of the complainant. The learned
counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Tabrez Khan Alias Guddu
and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
reported in (2019)4 SCC 615 wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that in the absence of prima face case the
Court can invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-
State would submit that in the complaint specific
allegations are made with regard to harassment is
concerned and also specific allegations are made that
the petitioners have performed the second marriage of
accused No.1 with another woman on 29.06.2020.
When such allegations are made and the complaint
discloses prima facie case, it requires investigation.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners and the learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-
State and on perusal of the contents of the complaint
dated 29.04.2021, it is not in dispute that the
complainant's marriage was performed with accused
No.1 on 29.03.2017. The complaint discloses that it was
a love marriage and in the said wedlock, the
complainant gave birth to male child. It is her allegation
in the complaint against her husband that in a tenanted
premise she was subjected to both physical and mental
harassment. The allegations against the petitioners who
are mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband of sister-
in-law are that they abused her in a filthy language and
assaulted her and asked her to get money. They have
also caused life threat to her and her child. Apart from
that, allegation is made that all of them have joined
together in performing the second marriage of her
husband with other woman on 29.06.2020. When such
allegations are made in the complaint that she was
subjected to both physical and mental harassment and
caused life threat, the police have invoked Sections 109,
494, 506, 498-A, 504, 323 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The
matter requires to be probed. No doubt, the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the judgment referred to supra held that
in matrimonial case roping of relatives of the husband is
common and under such circumstances, the Court can
exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In this
case, the petitioners are mother-in-law, sister-in-law
and husband of the sister-in-law of the complainant.
The specific allegation against them is that all of them
joined in performance of second marriage of her
husband on 29.06.2020. Apart from that, the specific
allegations are made that they abused her and caused
life threat to her and her child. Hence, the principles of
laid down in the judgment referred to supra in
Seenivasan's case is not applicable to the case on
hand. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Tabrez Khan's case
referred to supra invoked Section 482 of Cr.P.C., where
no prima facie case been made out. In the case on
hand, as already discussed, the specific allegations are
made that the accused persons not only subjected her to
physical and mental harassment but also they caused
life threat to her and her child and they have performed
the second marriage of her husband with other woman
on 29.06.2020. When such being the case, it requires
investigation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarath
and others reported in (2018) 3 SCC 104 has held
that if the complaint discloses committing of cognizable
offence, while exercising inherent power under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., in context of challenge to FIR, principles
laid down are summarized and held that if prima facie
materials are found, the High Court should not venture
to appreciate the evidence nor can draw any inference
from the contents of the FIR and the material relied on.
When the material relied on is disputed, in such a
situation, it becomes job of the investigating authority at
such stage to probe and then of the Court to examine
questions once the chargesheet is filed along with such
material as to how far and to what extent reliance can
be placed on such material. Once the Court finds that
FIR discloses prima facie commission of any cognizable
offence, it should stay its hand and allow investigating
machinery to step into initiate the probe to unearth
crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in
Cr.P.C.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I
pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
In view of disposal of the main petition,
I.A.No.1/2021 for stay does not survive for
consideration and accordingly, it is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB*
