Subhash Patil And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3452 Kant

                            1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.200460/2021

BETWEEN:

1.     SUBHASH PATIL
       S/O AYYANGOUDA PATIL
       AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: ASST. PROFESSOR

2.     AYYANGOUDA S/O SIDDANNA
       AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

3.     BUDIBASAVA S/O AYYANGOUDA
       AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

4.     SUDHA D/O AYYANGOUDA
       AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

       ALL ARE R/O H.NO. 1-11-711/57
       PLOT NO. 57, SY NO. 18/3
       MAHALAXMI NILAYA, RAMPUR ROAD
       NIJALINGAPPA COLONY
       RAICHUR

                                         ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI ISHWARAJ S. CHOWDAPUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       KALABURAGI BENCH
                                2




2.    SMT RASHMI W/O SUBHASH PATIL
      AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
      R/O GANDHI CHOWK, KAJGARWADI
      NEAR PUJARI HOSPITAL
      YADGIRI
                                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R1;
 SRI MAHADEV S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 06.03.2019 IN CRL.MISC.NO.151/2019 PASSED
BY JMFC, YADGIRI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
05.10.2019 IN CRL.REV.PET.NO.9/2019 PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIRI.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,

praying this Court to set aside the order dated 06.03.2019

passed in Crl.Misc.No.151/2019 passed by the JMFC,

Yadgiri and also to set aside the order dated 05.10.2019 in

Criminal Revision Petition No.9/2019 passed by the District

and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the

State.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the

respondent No.2 herein has initiated proceedings against

the petitioners under the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as 'the Act') and the Court below issued notice

against the respondents before the trial Court and the

same has been challenged before the Revisional Court.

The Revisional Court has also confirmed the same. Being

aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed

contending that the said Court has no jurisdiction to try

the case and only with an intention to harass them, a false

complaint is filed by the respondent No.2 herein. The

complainant has not lodged the complaint in Form No.II

and Rule 6 of the Act is not followed. It was contended

that the contents of complaint are most unnatural,

unbelievable and improbable and hence, it requires

interference by this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently

contended that without hearing notice has been issued to

the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners also

submits that all the family members of the husband are

roped in the complaint and no specific role is attributed

against them.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader submitted that the trial Court as well as the

Revisional Court had taken note of the contents of the

complaint which is filed under Section 12 read with

Sections 8, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act and no grounds are

made out to allow this petition by exercising power under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Shyamlal Devda and Others vs. Parimala reported in

2020 SAR (Crl) 406 and brought to the notice of this

Court, paragraph No.8 of the said judgment, wherein the

Hon'ble Apex Court observed that when acts of domestic

violence is alleged, before issuing notice, the Court has to

be prima facie satisfied that there have been instances of

domestic violence. Keeping the principle laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court has to consider the contents

of the complaint and on perusal of the complaint which is

filed before the Court below, specific instances are

mentioned in paragraph Nos.4 and 6 of the complaint

subjecting the respondent No.2 herein for domestic

violence. When such facts are pleaded in the original

complaint itself and the Court has satisfied with the

complaint averments, I do not find any error in issuance of

notice against the respondents/petitioners herein. Hence,

I do not find any merit invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

7. In view of the discussion made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VNR