Karnataka High Court
Smt. Veena Shrinivas Kanakaraddi vs State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2022
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 100538 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100538 OF 2022 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.VEENA SHRINIVAS KANAKARADDI
W/O SHRINIVAS KANAKARADDI,
AGED 34 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O VENKATESH HOSPITAL,
MAHALINGAPURA, TQ. RABAKAVI BANAHATTI,
BAGALKOT-589101.
2. MR.SHRINIVAS KANAKARADDI,
S/O. VENKATESH KANAKARADDI.
AGED 37 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR
R/O. VENKATESH HOSPITAL,
MAHALINGAPURA,
TQ. RABAKAVI BANAHATTI
BAGALKOT-589101.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI AVINASH M ANGADI, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MAHALINGAPUR POLICE STATION,
Digitally signed by MAHALINGAPUR, REP. BY ITS
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KATTIMANI HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580001.
2. SMT.SHARVANI KANAKARADDI,
W/O. AJIT KANAKARADDI,
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR,
R/O. VENKATESH HOSPITAL,
MAHALINGAPURA,
-2-
CRL.P No. 100538 of 2022
TQ. RABAKAVI BANAHATTI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN UPPAR, ADV. FOR R.1)
SRI MAHANTESH S.HIREMATH &
SRI ZAHEERABBHAS M.HATTARKI FOR R.2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT
AND FIR IN CRIME NO.60/2020, CHARGE SHEET DATED 04.07.2020,
ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 24.07.2020 IN
C.C.NO.811/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, MUDHOL FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 504, 506
AND R/W 34 OF IPC AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO
THEREIN IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though this petition is posted for admission, with the
consent of the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Sri Avinash M.Angadi learned counsel for
the petitioners, Sri Praveen K.Uppar, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri
Mahantesh M.Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
3. Preset petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. with the following prayer.
CRL.P No. 100538 of 2022
most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to allow this petition and quash the
complaint and fir in Crime No.60/2020, charge
sheet dated 04.07.2020, order of taking cognizance
dated 24.07.2020 in C.C.No.811/ 2020 pending on
the file of Principal Civil Judge And JMFC, Mudhol
for the offences punishable u/s 504, 506 and r/w
34 of IPC and all further proceedings pursuant to
therein in respect of the petitioners herein in the
interest of justice."
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
A complaint came to be lodged by Smt.Sharvani wife
of Ajit which was registered by Mahalingapur Police,
Mudhol Circle, Bagalkot District in Crime No.60/2020 for
the offence punishable under Section 506 and 504 read
with Section 34 of IPC.
5. The gist of the complaint averments is that,
complainant and accused are blood relatives and in
respect of dispute with regard to the immovable property
namely Venkatesha Hospital, there was an altercation on
19.06.2020 at about 10.00 p.m. and accused persons
CRL.P No. 100538 of 2022
abused the complainant in filthy language and gave a life
threat. Admittedly, the offence alleged against the
accused petitioners are not cognizable and therefore, the
course that were open to the investigating agency was to
take necessary permission from the Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
6. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630 has held that,
obtaining prior permission of the learned Magistrate for
registration of the non-cognizable offence is a sine-qua-
non and in the absence of any such permission, directly
registering the case has resulted in miscarriage of justice
and therefore, the petitioner has sought for quashing of
registration of FIR.
7. Per-contra, learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent who is the de-facto complainant contended
CRL.P No. 100538 of 2022
that the right of the complainant cannot be lost sight of
while quashing the order.
8. This Court perused the material on record in
the light of the rival contentions of the parties.
9. Admittedly, the offences alleged are non-
cognizable. Therefore, the police authorities before
registering the case was required to obtain necessary
permission as is contemplated under Section 155(2) of
Cr.P.C.
10. The judgment of this Court in Vaggappa's
case (supra) has not been followed by the investigating
agency. Accordingly, registration of the FIR is incorrect.
Hence, this Court pass the following.
ORDER
The petition is hereby allowed.
Registration of the FIR in Crime No.60/2020 dated
26.06.2020 is hereby quashed.
CRL.P No. 100538 of 2022
However, right of the complainant cannot be lost
sight off, while quashing the complaint and the
complainant is at liberty to take the complaint to the
jurisdictional magistrate and obtain necessary permission
if need be, for further proceeding with the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
EM
