Smt Krupa Vinay vs State By
2021 Latest Caselaw 6744 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6744 Kant
Judgement Date : 18 December, 2021

Karnataka High Court

Smt Krupa Vinay vs State By on 18 December, 2021

Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 18 T H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                          BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

       CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8752 OF 2021


BETWEEN:

1.    Smt. Krup a Vinay,
      W/o Sri Vinay,
      Aged about 42 years,
      Totad a Gadde Estate,
      Anemahal Post,
      Sakleshp ur-573134.

2.    Smt. Trupti,
      W/o Dr. Rohith,
      Aged about 34 years,
      No.12, Magnor Resid ency,
      3 r d Cross, Bap uji Layout,
      Vijaynag ar North,
      Beng aluru-560040.
                                              ...Petitioners
(By Sri G.R.Prakash, Ad vocate)

AND:

1.    State by Women Police Station,
      Hassan,
      Rep. by Additional Public Prosecutor,
      Hig h Court of Karnataka Annex,
      Beng aluru-560001.

2.    Smt. Manasa B.Y.,
      W/o Sri Lakshmikantha,
      Aged about 27 years,
      Karmel Mathashrama Road,
                                  :: 2 ::


       Hemavathinag ar,
       Hassan-573202.
                                                      ...Respondents
(By Sri Rohith B.J., HCGP for R1)

       This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
of   Cr.P.C.,      p raying     to   quash     the    charg e   sheet
registered        ag ainst     the      petitioners   by    the   1st
respondent         Women        Police     Station,    Hassan,     in
Cr.No.26/2020 registered as C.C.No.2203/2020 on the
file of IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan for
the offence punishable und er Section 498A, 323, 307,
354, 506, 341, 114 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of D.P.Act.

       This Criminal Petition coming on for admission
this d ay, the Court made the following:

                                ORDER

Heard Sri G.R.Prakash, learned counsel for

the petitioners at the time of admission.

2. In this petition under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., the petitioners being accused 2 and 3

have sought to quash the proceedings against

them in C.C.No.2203/2020 on the file of the IV

Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan.

:: 3 ::

3. Charge sheet has been filed against them

and other accused for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 323, 307, 354, 506, 341 and

114 read with Section 34 of IPC.

4. The petitioners are the sisters of the first

accused, who is the husband of second

respondent. In relation to harassment meted out

to second respondent in connection with dowry

demand, she lodged an FIR with the police and it

came to be registered in Crime No.26/2020. The

police held investigation and filed charge sheet.

5. It is the argument of the learned counsel

for the petitioners that the FIR in Crime

No.26/2020 is the continuation of earlier complaint

which did not result in registration of FIR. He

refers to the judgment in Crl.Misc.No.919/2017,

which was a proceeding under Section 12 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

and argues that the observations made by the :: 4 ::

learned Magistrate in the said proceeding clearly

indicate that the participation of the petitioners

were not at all there. He refers to certain

admissions given by the second respondent.

Therefore it is his argument that in view of these

facts and circumstances, a false FIR in Crime

No.26/2020 came to be registered against the

petitioners and that a charge sheet based on the

same is also not sustainable.

        6.     Copy         of        the           judgment              in

Crl.Misc.No.919/2017 is produced.                        It is true that

the      second        respondent            has      given          certain

admissions, but in FIR in Crime No.26/2020, what

is specifically alleged is that on 10.02.2020 at

about 11.00pm, accused No.1 to 5 made an

attempt on the life of the second respondent. The

evidence collected by the investigating officer also

indicates some overt-acts attributed to the

petitioners. Therefore it is to be stated that when :: 5 ::

the charge sheet shows the involvement of the

petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime,

they have to face the trial. While deciding a

petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., evidence

cannot be appreciated and this is a well