Karnataka High Court
Shri. Lakshman M S/O Masthanappa vs Smt. Padma M @ M. Padmavathi W/O ... on 16 February, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100921/2021
BETWEEN
1. SHRI. LAKSHMAN M. S/O MASTHANAPPA
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BANK EMPLOYEE,
R/O RANIPET, HOSAPETE, TQ HOSAPETE,
DIST VIJAYNAGAR-581201.
2. SMT. PARVATHI M W/O VIJAYA KUMAR
AGE 52 YEARS, OCC LABOURER,
R/O WARD NO. 5, RANIPET, HOSAPETE,
TQ HOSAPETE, DIST VIJAYNAGAR-581201.
3. SHRI. SHARATH KUMAR M.S/O LAKSHMAN M.
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER,
R/O. RANIPET, HOSAPETE,
TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST VIJAYNAGAR-581201.
4. SRI MANUJ KUMAR @ M MANOHAR
S/O LAKSHMAN M.
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER,
R/O: RANIPET, HOSAPETE,
TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYNAGAR-581201
...PETITIONERS
2
(BY SRI SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. PADMA M @ M. PADMAVATHI
W/O LAKSHMAN
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER,
R/O RANIPET, HOSAPETE,
TQ HOSAPETE, DIST BALLARI-581201.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH, HOSAPETE TOWN POLICE STATION,
HOSAPETE, DIST VIJAYNAGAR-591201
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R2)
(R1-SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1057/2019 PENDING
ON THE FILE FO THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC., HOSAPETE ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.28/2019 OF HOSAPETE TOWN POLICE STATION FOR
THE COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 341, 323, 504 AND
506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,
1860.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question
proceedings in C.C.No.1057 of 2019 pending before the
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete registered for offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 341, 504 and 506 r/w
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Sri.Shivaraj S Ballolli, learned counsel for
petitioners and Sri.Ramesh Chigari, HCGP for respondent-State.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition,
as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
Before embarking upon consideration of the case, I deem
it appropriate to notice relationship between the parties to the
lis. The 1st respondent is the complainant and the 1st petitioner
is the husband of the 1st respondent; 2nd petitioner is the sister-
in-law of the complainant and petitioners 3 and 4 are the
children of the 1st petitioner from his first wife. The complainant
and the 1st petitioner got married about 16 years prior to the
registration of the complaint. The complainant is the second
wife of the 1st petitioner. The complainant married the 1st
petitioner after the death of his first wife. It is the case of the
1st petitioner that marital life between the complainant and the
1st petitioner was good at all times with some quarrel here and
there intermittently. After about 16 years of marriage the
complainant registers a complaint against the petitioners herein
for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 341, 504 and
506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. It is the allegation in the
complaint that on 20-02-2019 at about 8 p.m. when the
complainant was returning to home she meets her husband
opposite the dargah and asked him to provide her clothes. It is
alleged that the husband denied any clothing and further
stopped her way and on repeated asking it is alleged that the
husband assaulted the wife. Based upon the said incident, the
complaint is registered on 22-02-2019 upon which an FIR came
to be registered in Crime No.28 of 2019 for the offences supra.
The Police after conducting investigation have also filed a charge
sheet in the matter and the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.
The case is now registered as C.C.No.1057 of 2019. The
petitioners invoking Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. filed an
application seeking their discharge from the case. The trial
Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. It is the
aforesaid proceedings that are called in question in the subject
petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
vehemently argue and contend that there was no incident that
has happened that would touch upon the offences that are
alleged against the petitioners. For 16 years the complainant
has lived with the 1st petitioner/husband peacefully and all of a
sudden raked up an issue of assault and demand for dowry. The
other members of the family - sister in law and the children of
the 1st wife are also unnecessarily dragged into these
proceedings. The learned High Court Pleader would however
contend that this is a matter of trial as it is a clear case of
assault against the complainant by the husband but would admit
that others are simply dragged into the proceedings. The
complainant is served and unrepresented.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and
perused the material on record.
6. The afore-narrated facts not being in dispute are not
reiterated. The entire issue springs from an incident that is
allegedly happened on 20-02-2019 upon which a complaint is
registered by the complainant on 22-02-2019. The complaint
reads as follows:
"F PɼU
À É ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀ zÀÆgÀÄ K£ÀAzÀgÃÉ , £À£Àß
v˻g
À ÀÄ ªÀÄ£É §¼ÁîjAiÀÄ «Ä¯Áègï ¥ÉÃmÉ DVzÀÄÝ, FUÉÎ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 16 ªÀµð
À UÀ¼À
»AzÉ ºÉƸÀ¥ÃÉ mÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ®PÀëöät JA§ÄªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß
UÀAqÀ ®PÀëöät¤UÉ ªÉÆzÀ®£ÉÃAiÀÄ ºÉAqÀw GªÀiÁzÉë CAvÀ EzÀÄÝ, EªÀjUÉ
JgÀqÀÄ d£À ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÁÛg.É GªÀÄzÉëAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß
ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DVgÀÄvÁÛ£.É ªÀÄÈvÀ GªÀÄzÉë ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ (1) ±ÀgvÀ À PÀĪÀiÁgï,
ªÀ:20ªÀµð
À , (2) ªÀÄ£ÉÆÃeï PÀĪÀiÁgï, ªÀ:18 CAvÀ EgÀÄvÁÛg.É £À£U
À É ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ
DVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
£À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ ZÀ¼ÀîPg
É É ¹ArPÉÃmï ¨ÁåAPï £À°è CAmÉqg
À ï PÉ®¸À
ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, £À£U
À É ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 16 ªÀµÀð DzÁgÀÆ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ
DVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ £À£U
À É ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV 06 ªÀµð
À ªÀiÁvÀæ ZÉ£ÁßV
£ÉÆÃrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÀU¼
À °
À è £À£U
À É £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ
DV®è, ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV E®è, ¤Ã£ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀ£ÀÄß EªÀg£
À ÀÄß £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛAiÀiÁ
CAvÀ C£ÀĪÀiÁr ªÀiÁr ºÉÆqÉ §qÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ. FUÉÎ 06 wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ
£À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ZÀ¼ÀîPg
É É¬ÄAzÀ vÉÆÃgÀtUÀ®Äè ¹ArPÉÃmï ¨ÁåAPï ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ
DVzÀÝjAzÀ £À£U
À É ºÉƸÀ¥ÃÉ mÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA§A¢PÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ©lÄÖ,
vÉÆÃgÀtUÀ®Äè¬ÄAzÀ ºÉƸÀ¥ÃÉ mÉUÉ qÀÆånUÉ ºÉÆÃV §gÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ. £À£Àß
UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ FPÉ (CtÚ£À ºÉAqÀw) CwÛUAÉ iÀiÁzÀ ¥ÁªÀðwgÀªg
À À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß
UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ & ªÉÆzÀ®£ÉÃAiÀÄ ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄ E§âgÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÁÛg.É £Á£ÀÄ £À£ßÀ
UÀAqÀ¤UÉ vÉÆÃgÀtUÀ®Äè UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr & gÉõÀ£ï vÀg®
À Ä ºÀt
PÉÆqÀÄ CAvÀ PÉýPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®è,
¤£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®èªAÉ zÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ J°èUÁzÀgÀÆ ºÉÆÃV
¸Á¬Ä CªÀg£
À ÀÄß EªÀg£
À ÀÄß £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛAiÀiÁ CAvÀ C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À ªÀiÁr
ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV zÉÊ»PÀªÁV avÀæ»A¸É ¤Ãr QgÀÄPÀļÀÄ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ.
¢£ÁAPÀ:20/02/2019 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 8 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ gÁwæ 08-30
UÀAmÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÉ £Á£ÀÄ PÀÆ° PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ
gÁuÉ¥ÃÉ mÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ zÀUð
À zÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ®PÀëöätÚ ¤AwzÁÝUÀ
£Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ £À£Àß §mÉÖ§gÉU¼
À ÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀPÉÌ £À£Àß
UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà §mÉÖ§gÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¤Ã£ÀÄ ©üPÉë ©Ãr w£ÀÄß
CAvÀ ºÉý ¨ÉÊzÀÄ £À£U
À É ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉÆÃUÀzAÀ vÉ PÉÊAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß
PÁ¥À¼PÀ ÉÌ ºÉÆqÉzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÁ¥ÁqÀj JAzÀÄ PÀÆVPÉÆAqÁUÀ C¯Éèà EzÀÝ 2)
¥ÁªÀðw 3)±ÀgvÀ ï PÀĪÀiÁgï 4) ªÀÄ£ÉÆÃeï PÀĪÀiÁgï ªÀÄƪÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£U
À É
EªÀg°
À è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ F ¸ÀƼÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉÆÃUÀzAÀ vÉ
»rzÀÄPÉƽîjªÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀPÉÌ £À£U
À É ±ÀgvÀ ï PÀĪÀiÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄ£ÉÆÃeï
PÀĪÀiÁgï E§âgÀÄ £À£U
À É ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉÆÃUÀzAÀ vÉ »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÁUÀ £À£U
À É UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ
£À£U
À É PÉÊPÁ®ÄUÀ½AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ F ¸ÉƼÉUÉ AiÀiÁªÀ §mÉÖ §gÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀ ¸ÀA§¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è FPÉAiÀÄÄ ©üPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃr fêÀ£À
ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀ£ÀÄ. ¥ÁªÀðwAiÀÄÄ £À£U
À É F ¸ÉƼÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß fêÀAvÀ
©qÀ¨ÃÉ qÀ CAvÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ fêÀ ¨Ézj
À PÉ ºÁQzÀ£ÀÄ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ £À£U
À É ¤Ã£ÀÄ
¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ DzÁgÀÆ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ, PÉÆÃmïð DzÀgÀÆ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ CAvÀ ¨Ézj
À PÉ
ºÁQzÀ£ÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ UÀnÖAiÀiÁV D¼ÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄß PÉý C¯ÉèÃzÀÝ £ÀªÀÄä
¸ÀA§A¢PÀgÁzÀ 1) JA.¥À¸
æ Ázï vÀAzÉ ªÀĸÁÛ¥Àà 2) JA. ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ vÀAzÉ
PÉñÀªÀ E§âgÀÄ §AzÀÄ F dUÀ¼ª
À £
À ÀÄß ©r¹zÀgÀÄ.
DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä »jAiÀÄgÁzÀ ®Qëöä¥wÀ & PÉ.wªÀÄä¥Àà gÀªj
À UÉ F
«µÀAiÀÄ w½¹zÁUÀ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÉøï PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀ £ÁªÀÅ gÁf
ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÀ ºÉýzÀPÉÌ, £Á£ÀÄ ¤£Éß ¢£À £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwUÉ
§gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÀ PÁzÀÄ £ÉÆÃrzÁUÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ »jAiÀÄgÀ ªÀiÁwUÉ ¨É¯É
PÉÆqÀzÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛ£.É
PÁgÀt vÀqª
À ÁV F ¢£À oÁuÉUÉ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß 1)UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2)
¥ÁªÀðw 3) ±ÀgvÀ ï PÀĪÀiÁgï 4) ªÀÄ£ÉÆÃeï PÀĪÀiÁgï £Á®ÄÌ d£ÀgÀÄ £À£U
À É
ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV zÉÊ»PÀªÁV QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆlÖ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉÆÃUÀzAÀ vÉ vÀqz
É ÀÄ
zÀĨÁðµÉU½
À AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ¥Áæt ¨Ézj
À PÉ ºÁQzÀÄÝ EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀª
æ ÀÄ
dgÀÄV¸À®Ä PÉÆÃjzÉ."
7. The narration in the complaint is against the
husband/1st petitioner in its entirety. The incident that is
narrated is that the complainant asked the 1st
petitioner/husband to buy her some clothes. The husband
appears to have chided her that he would not buy any clothes
but it is open for the complainant to beg for money and buy
clothes. It is also alleged that the husband pulling her hands
slapped her and when the complainant screamed the other
petitioners who were there did not console her after the event
had taken place. The Police after investigation have filed a
charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet reads as
follows:
ºÉƸÀ¥ÃÉ mÉ ¥ÀlÖt ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¸Àgº
À ¢
À ÝUÉ §gÀĪÀ 5£ÉÃ
ªÁqÀð£À°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20/02/2019 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 8 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ gÁwæ 8-30
UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄzÀåzÀ CªÀ¢Aü iÀÄ°è oÁuÉ ¥ÉÃmÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ zÀUð
À zÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ
gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁQë-01 gÀªg
À ÀÄ J-01¤UÉ vÀ£Àß §mÉÖ§gÉU¼
À ÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÉAzÀÄ
ºÉýzÀPÉÌ A-01 £ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-01 gÀªj
À UÉ vÁ£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà §mÉÖ§gÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è
¤Ã£ÀÄ ©üPÉë ©Ãr w£ÀÄß CAvÀ ºÉý ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉÆÃUÀzAÀ vÉ PÉÊAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
»rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ PÁ¥À¼PÀ ÉÌ ºÉÆqÉzÁUÀ ¸ÁQë-01 gÀªg
À ÀÄ PÁ¥ÁqÀj JAzÀÄ
PÀÆVPÉÆAqÁUÀ C¯Éèà EzÀÝ A-02, A-03, A-04 ªÀÄƪÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-
01£ÀÄ F ¸ÀƼÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉÆÃUÀzAÀ vÉ »rzÀÄPÉƽîjªÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀPÉÌ
¸ÁQë-01 gÀªg
À £
À ÀÄß A-03 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ A-04 E§âgÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉÆÃUÀzAÀ vÉ
»rzÀÄPÉÆAqÁUÀ ¸ÁQë-01 gÀªj
À UÉ A-01 £ÀÄ PÉÊPÁ®ÄUÀ½AzÀ ºÉÆqɺÉÆqÉzÀÄ
"F ¸ÉƼÉUÉ AiÀiÁªÀ §mÉÖ §gÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀ ¸ÀA§¼Àª£
À ÀÄß
PÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è FPÉAiÀÄÄ ©üPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃr fêÀ£À ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀ£ÀÄ.
A-02 g˻j
À UÉ ¸ÁQë-01 gÀªÀjUÉ F ¸ÉƼÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß fêÀAvÀ ©qÀ¨ÃÉ qÀ CAvÀ
¨ÉÊzÀÄ fêÀ ¨Ézj
À PÉ ºÁQzÀ£ÀÄ. A-01 ¥ÀzÀägª
À j
À UÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¥ÉưøÀ oÁuÉUÉ
DzÁgÀÆ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ, PÉÆÃmïð DzÁgÀÆ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ CAvÀ ¨Ézj
À PÉ ºÁQzÀ£ÀÄ CAvÀ
vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ DgÉÆÃ¥À ¸Á©ÃvÁVzÀÝjAzÀ PÀ®A:498(J),
341, 323, 504, 506 DzsÁgÀ 34 L.¦.¹ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ zÉÆõÀgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥Àvª
Àæ £
À ÀÄß
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀ°è ¤ªÉâ¹zÉ.
8. A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would
also indicate that there is absolutely no offence alleged against
other members of the family except the husband. Even the
investigation has revealed that the husband has chided and hit
her which would touch upon assault. Therefore, there is no
allegation in the complaint against petitioner No.2, sister in-law
and petitioners 3 and 4, the children of the 1st wife and without
there being any allegation whatsoever they are simply dragged
into these proceedings. The learned Magistrate before whom the
application was filed seeking discharge ought to have noticed
the complaint and summary of the charge sheet and considering
the same should have passed appropriate orders. The order on
discharge dated 13-01-2021 is baldy and laconic which has
driven the petitioners to this Court. The entire allegation/
narration in the complaint and summary of the charge sheet
point at the offences alleged against petitioner No.1/ husband.
Therefore, there is no warrant for permitting any further
proceedings to continue against petitioners 2, 3 and 4 and such
proceedings against petitioners 2, 3 and 4 should stand
obliterated failing which it would be an abuse of process of law
and result in miscarriage of justice. The view of mine in this
regard is fortified by the latest judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of SHAFIYA KHAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 167 wherein it is
held as follows:
"15. The exposition of law on the subject
relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power
under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent
power under Section 482 Cr.PC are well settled and to
the possible extent, this Court has defined sufficiently
channelized guidelines, to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised. This Court has held in para 102 in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) as under:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the
following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines
or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on
the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to
the institution and continuance of the proceedings
and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code
or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."
16. The principles laid down by this Court have
consistently been followed, as well as in the recent
judgment of three Judge judgment of this Court
in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra2.
(Emphasis supplied)
9. In the light of preceding analysis, I pass the following:
ORDER
The criminal petition is allowed in part. All further
proceedings against petitioners 2, 3 and 4 stand quashed. The
petition insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned stands
dismissed. It is made clear that observations made in the course
of this order will not influence or bind any further proceedings
against the 1st petitioner/accused No.1/husband. The trial Court
shall conduct further proceedings and pass orders in accordance
with law against the 1st petitioner.
SD
JUDGE
SSP
