Karnataka High Court
Amregouda S/O Doddanagouda Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2023
Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526
CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101392 OF 2022 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. AMREGOUDA
S/O DODDANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE. 42 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAMBALIHAL-587 125,
TQ. HUNGUND,
DIST. BAGALKOTE.
2. SHARANAGOUDA @ SHARANAPPAGOUDA
S/O DODDANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE. 38 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
VISHAL R/O. KAMBALIHAL-587 125,
TQ. HUNGUND,
NINGAPPA DIST. BAGALKOTE.
PATTIHAL
Digitally signed by
3. DODDANAGOUDA
VISHAL NINGAPPA S/O AMAREGOUDA PATIL,
PATTIHAL AGE. 70 YEARS,
Date: 2023.08.11 OCC. AGRICULTURE,
11:22:08 +0530
R/O. KAMBALIHAL-587 125,
TQ. HUNGUND,
DIST. BAGALKOTE.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526
CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY POLICE INSPECTOR,
ILKAL RURUAL POLICE STATION,
ILKAL-587125, TQ. ILKAL,
DIST. BAGALKOTE,
THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
2. HANAMAVVA
D/O DODDAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE. 38 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KAMBALAHAL-587 125,
TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V S KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN SPL. CASE
NO.19/2022 (ILKAL RURAL P.S. CRIME NO.04/2022) FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS, 323, 354, 504,
506, 34 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) OF SC/ST
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT), 1989 AS PER ANNEXURE-
E AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS IN SPL CASE
NO.19/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALAKOTE FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS, 323, 354, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC
AND U/SEC. 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES ACT) ACT, 1989 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526
CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in
question proceedings in Special Case No.19/2022 for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506
read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
A complaint comes to be registered on 27.12.2021
by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners, who are
accused Nos.1 to 3. It is the case of the complainant that
the accused No.1 - petitioner had indulged in physical
relationship with the respondent on the promise of
marriage and has breached such promise of marriage.
Therefore, the offences under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506
of the IPC. Since the complainant belongs to scheduled
caste, the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526
CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022
Atrocities) Act, 1989 is also led. The Police after
investigation filed a charge sheet and a Special Court
registers Special Case No.19/2022. It is the registration of
the special case that drives the petitioners to this Court in
the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would contend that the complainant is in the
habit of registering such complaints. One such compliant
on an identical allegation was earlier registered, which had
become a subject matter in Special Case No.7/2007 in
which the petitioner gets acquitted in terms of the order of
the concerned Court dated 16.11.2007. Long after the said
acquittal, again the complainant registers an identical
compliant in which though there are no offences which are
alleged to be punished under Section 376 of the IPC, but
the contents remain the case. He would seek quashment
of the proceedings.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526
CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022
5. The complainant though served, has remains
unrepresented. Therefore, the petitioner and the learned
HCGP are heard.
6. Learned HCGP on the other hand would seek to
refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner is
alleged of offences punishable under Sections 323 or 354
of the IPC and the Police after investigation have filed their
charge sheet. Therefore, the proceedings should be
permitted to be continued, as it is for the petitioner to
come out clean in the trial.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective counsel and have
perused the material on record.
8. Before embarking upon consideration of the
impugned complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the
order of acquittal passed by the concerned Court in Special
Case No.7/2007. The complainant is the same. The
accused, the present petitioners are also the same, in the
said proceedings. What is shocking is the offences are also
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526
CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022
the same except the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
The subject matter of the said Special Case No.7/2007 is
the physical relationship between the complainant and the
accused No.1 therein on the promise of marriage and its
breach. Therefore, the parents of the accused No.1 were
also arrayed as accused in Special Case No.7/2007. The
story had to end there. The impugned crime is registered
on 27.12.2021 alleging verbatim similar allegations
against the petitioners which had ended in acquittal in the
aforesaid special case. The only difference between the
two is the offence of Section 376 of the IPC is missing.
Barring this, the complaint is verbatim similar to what the
subject matter of acquittal, the Police after investigation
had filed their charge sheet. Even the charge sheet as
obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows:
"17. PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±À
¸À¤ß¢ü PÉÆÃlð ¸ÀܼÀ ¹ªÉÄÃAiÀÄ E®PÀ¯ï vÁ®ÆQ£À
PÀA§½ºÁ¼À UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆævÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ
gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¢£ÁAPÀ : 27-12-2021 gÀAzÀÄ 19-30 UÀAmÉ
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526
CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022
¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæ PÁ®A £ÀA 12 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ
ªÀiÁrzÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀ ¥ÉÊQ DgÉÆæ £ÀA.1 £ÉÃzÀ£ÁzÀ CªÀÄgÉÃUËqÀ
zÉÆqÀØ£ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánî. ¸Á : PÀA§½ºÁ¼À EªÀ£ÀÄ ¸À£ï 2006£ÉÃ
¸Á°£À°è ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É CAvÁ
¦æÃw¹ CªÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÁA¸ÁjPÀ fêÀ£À ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ CzÀjAzÀ
CªÀ½UÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄUÀÄ d¤¹zÀÄÝ EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉ
ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É CAvÁ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛ §AzÀÄ FUÀ CªÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ
¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, F «µÀAiÀÄ w½zÀ
¦AiÀiÁð¢zÁgÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃV DgÉÆæ
£ÀA 1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ¤UÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¦æÃw¹ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÃ£É CAvÁ
ºÉý £À£ÀUÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ FUÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉ
ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆà CAvÁ ºÉýzÀÝjAzÀ
DgÉÆæ £ÀA.1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢UÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ
UÉÆwÛ¯Áè ¯Éà ¨ÁåqÀgÀ ¸Àƽ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄ£ÁßV ElÄÖPÉƼÀî®Ä
DUÀÄvÁÛ CAvÁ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÁr PÉʬÄAzÀ ºÉÆr§r
ªÀiÁqÀzÀÄÝ, DUÀ C¯Éèà EzÀÝ DgÉÆæ £ÀA 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 £ÉÃzÀªÀgÀÄ K
¨ÉÆøÀr gÀAr E¯ÁèöåPÀ §A¢ ¨ÁåqÀgÀ ¸Àƽ CAvÁ
¦AiÀiÁð¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀ¼Áîr eÁw ¤AzÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀzÄÀ Ý C®èzÉà ¸ÀĪÀÄä£ÉÃ
ºÉÆÃUÀ¢zÀÝgÉà fêÀ ¸À»vÀ ©qÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè CAvÁ fêÀzÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ
ºÁQzÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ."
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526
CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022
9. The summary of the charge sheet would clearly
indicate that an incident of 2006 in which the petitioners
had already been acquitted is reiterated with there being
no difference between the two. It is a classic case where
laws abused and misused by the complainant. In the teeth
of the aforesaid facts, if further proceedings are permitted
to be continued it would run foul of the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v.
Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp(1)
Supreme Court Cases 335 and the postulates laid down.
The Apex Court has held as follows:
"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
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526
CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022
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 non-cognizable offence, no investigation
is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526
CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022
(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."
10. The Apex Court in the postulates laid down
supra clearly holds that if the criminal proceedings are
instituted with mala fide intention, such crimes should not
be permitted to be investigated even. In the case at hand,
the Police have filed their charge sheet for an incident of
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526
CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022
2006 in the year 2022 and for an incident tied long ago
resulting in acquittal of petitioners. If further proceeding is
permitted in the teeth of the aforesaid facts, it would
become an abuse of process of the law.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) The entire proceedings in Special Case
No.19/2022 pending on the file of the II Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Bagalakote and the charge sheet in
the aforesaid special case qua the petitioners stands
quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Rsh/Ct:Bck
