Karnataka High Court

Anandi W/O. Suryakant Neelajkar vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2022

Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100082/2022

BETWEEN

1.   ANANDI W/O. SURYAKANT NEELAJKAR,
     AGE 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. 31/1, GANGAWALI VILLAGE,
     A/POST, KARAMBAL, TQ. KHANAPUR,
     DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

2.   SURYAKANT S/O. BABU NEELAJKAR,
     AGE 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. 31/1, GANGAWALI VILLAGE,
     A/POST, KARAMBAL, TQ. KHANAPUR,
     DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

3.   GAJANAN S/O. SURYAKANT NEELAJKAR
     AGE 40 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE
     R/O. 31/1, GANGAWALI VILLAGE,
     A/POST, KARAMBAL, TQ. KHANAPUR,
     DIST. BELAGAVI-590001,
     NOW R/O. S/NO/ 13, CBS, C/O. 56 APO
     JAMMU KASHMIR-180001.

4.   SHANTA NARAYAN NEELAJAKAR,
     AGE 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. 31/1, GANGAWALI VILLAGE,
     A/POST, KARAMBAL, TQ. KHANAPUR,
     DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
                            2




5.   SUJATA W/O. SANTOSHA NEELAJKAR,
     AGE 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. 31/1, GANGAWALI VILLAGE,
     A/POST, KARAMBAL, TQ. KHANAPUR,
     DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

6.   RUKMINI W/O. VITTAL NEELAJKAR,
     AGE 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O. 31/1, GANGAWALI VILLAGE,
     A/POST, KARAMBAL, TQ. KHANAPUR,
     DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
                                          ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI M.H.PATIL, AND SRI HARSHAWARDHANA M.PATIL
ADVOCATES)

AND :

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     KHANAPUR P.S.,
     R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA-580001,
     DHARWAD.

2.   POOJA W/O. PUNDALIK NEELAJKAR,
     AGE 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. 31/1, GANGAWALI VILLAGE,
     A/POST, KARAMBAL, TQ. KHANAPUR,
     DIST. BELAGAVI-590001,
     NOW AT H.NO. 483, LAKSHMI NIWAS,
     TULAJA BHAVANI GALLI, HALAKARNI,
     TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591302.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(BY SMT R.M.HIREMATH AND SRI SRINIVAS NANDAMANI,
AND SRI S.S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
                               3




RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143,
147, 341, 323, 504, 506, R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC PENDING
ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT,
KHANAPUR UNDER KHANAPUR P.S.CRIME NO.213/2021 IN SO
FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

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

                           ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in

question the proceedings in Crime No.213/2021 registered

for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341,

323, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri Harshawardhana M. Patil, learned

counsel appearing for petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 and

Sri Ramesh Chigari learned HCGP appearing for respondent

No.1-State as well as Smt R.M.Hiremath, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent No.2-complainant.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition

as borne out from the pleadings are as follows :

The marriage between the 2nd respondent-

complainant and the 1st accused is solemnized on

02.05.2015. It is the case of the complainant that after the

marriage the complainant stayed at the matrimonial house

for a brief period and used to go to her parents house and

would come back only when the husband used to visit the

matrimonial house. The said arrangement was made on the

ground that husband was working as a Security in the

I.T.B.T. Industry at Vantamuri near Belagavi. The

complainant and accused No.1 have two children from the

wedlock. It is the case of the complainant that on

17.09.2021 at about 9.30 p.m. when the complainant

along with her father and her brothers went to the

matrimonial home she was not permitted to go inside by

the husband and all other relatives. It is further alleged in

the complaint that the father-in-law, mother-in-law and

other accused, who are petitioners in the present petition,

together, have hurled abuses on the complainant and also

assaulted her. Based upon the said complaint, an FIR came

to be registered against the petitioners for the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 504 and

506 read with section 149 of IPC. Investigation is in

progress and statements of all the witnesses have been

recorded that were present at the time of incident.

4. The learned HCGP has also placed the Wound

Certificate, which is a part of the investigation, for a

perusal of the Court. The Wound Certificate clearly

indicates that the complainant did suffer injuries, which

were the result of the assault by all the petitioners as is

alleged in the complaint. It is not a case where no offence

is made out in the complaint against the petitioners as

aforesaid.

5. The complainant clearly narrates the incident of

assault by the petitioners coming together and therefore

Section 149 of IPC is invoked against all the petitioners.

Section 323 of IPC which deals with hurt is prima facie

made out in the complaint. The added circumstance is the

wound certificate. Section 341 of IPC deals with wrongful

restraint is also made out in the complaint as the

complainant was never let into the matrimonial house.

Rests of the allegations are result of Sections 341 and 323

of IPC. Therefore, the complaint meets the ingredients of

all the offences alleged.

6. The allegations are for offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with

section 149 of IPC on the ground that all other members of

the family are dragged into the criminal proceedings, the

proceedings cannot be quashed as there is prima facie

material in the complaint to drive home the offence. It is

for the petitioners to come out clean in the trial.

7. It is useful to refer to the latest Judgment rendered

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of of Meera vs.

State by the Inspector of Police, Thiruvotriyur Police

Station, Chennai, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 31,

has held as follows:

"8 Now, in so far as the alternative submission made on behalf of the accused to take a lenient view looking to the age of the appellant is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such the Trial Court has imposed the sentence of one year R.I. for the offence under Section 498A. However, the punishment could have been upto three years R.I. At the time when the incident occurred, the appellant was approximately between 60-65 years. The incident is of the year 2006. Therefore, merely because long time has passed in concluding the trial and/or deciding the appeal by the High Court, is no ground not to impose the punishment and/or to impose the sentence already undergone. It is to be noted that the appellant - mother-in-law is held to be guilty for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Being a lady, the appellant, who was the mother-in-law, ought to have been more sensitive vis-à-vis her daughter-in-law. When an offence has been committed by a woman by meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more serious offence. If a lady, i.e., the mother-in-law herein does not protect another lady, the other lady, i.e., daughter-in-law would become vulnerable. In the present case, even the husband of the victim was staying abroad. The victim was staying all alone with

her in-laws. Therefore, it was the duty of the appellant, being the mother-in-law and her family to take care of her daughter-in-law, rather than harassing and/or torturing and/or meting out cruelty to her daughter-in-law regarding jewels or on other issues. Therefore, as such, no leniency is required to be shown to the appellant in this case. There must be some punishment for the reasons stated hereinabove. However, considering the fact that the incident is of the year 2006 and at present the appellant is reported to be approximately 80 years old, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as a mitigating circumstance, we propose to reduce the sentence from one year R.I. to three months R.I. with fine imposed by the Trial Court to be maintained."

the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering a criminal appeal

against the conviction has clearly held that the mother-in-

law assaulting the daughter-in-law would amount to a

woman assaulting another woman which is a grave offence

as a woman should protect a woman and meet out cruelty.

Therefore, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in the

trial with regard to the allegation of assault. I do not find

any ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings

registered against the petitioners.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, criminal petition lacks

merit and is dismissed.

9. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the