Karnataka High Court
Mr Shankarnarayan vs State Of Karnataka on 5 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30888
CRL.P No. 7009 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 7010 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7009 OF 2018
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7010 OF 2018
IN WP NO. 7009/2018
BETWEEN:
1. MR VENKATAKRISHNA
S/O SRINIVASAN,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.68, NADUGUZILI STREET,
TRICHI, TAMILNADU-620008.
2. MRS LATHA
Digitally
signed by W/O VENKATAKRISHNA,
ANAND N
Location:
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
HIGH R/AT NO.68, NADUGUZILI STREET,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
TRICHI, TAMILNADU-620008.
3. SMT MONISHA
W/O LATE KARTHIK
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT NO.68, NADUGUZILI STREET,
TRICHI, TAMILNADU-620008.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30888
CRL.P No. 7009 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 7010 of 2018
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY AUDUGODI POLICE
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. SMT SARASWATHI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
W/O SHANKARANARAYAN,
R/AT NO.302,
COMFORT BENAKA APARTMENTS,
ERAMMA LAYOUT, BG ROAD,
AUDUGODI, BANGALORE-560030
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1 .,
SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.195/2018
PENDING BEFORE THE 71th CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 313,420,504,506,34 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF
D.P ACT AND U/S 3(1)(X) (xii) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT FILED BY
THE FIRST RESPONDENT POLICE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30888
CRL.P No. 7009 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 7010 of 2018
IN WP NO. 7010/2018
BETWEEN:
MR SHANKARNARAYAN
S/O VENKATAKRISHNA,
RESIDING AT NO.68,
NADUGUZILI STREET,
TRICHI, TAMILNADU-620008.
ALSO AT
SV JEWELLERS, ABOVE
RAJATHA MAHAL HOTEL,
OTC ROAD,
NAGARATPET,
BANGALORE-560001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ADUGODI POLICE REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-01.
2. SMT SARASWATHI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
W/O SHANKARNARAYAN,
RESIDING AT NO.302,
COMFORT BENAKA APARTMENTS,
ERAMMA LAYOUT, BG ROAD,
ADUGODI BANGALORE-560030.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. VEERANNA G TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:30888
CRL.P No. 7009 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 7010 of 2018
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.195/2018
PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 313,420,504,506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND SECTION
3(1)(x)(xii) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT
FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE VIDE ANNEXURE-A
AND B.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
COMMON ORAL ORDER
Even though, these petitions were listed for orders, they
are taken up for final disposal, with the consent of the learned
counsels for the parties.
2. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.7009/2018 are accused
Nos.2 to 4, being the parents-in-law and sister-in-law of the
complainant and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7010/2018 is
accused No.1, being the husband of the complainant, are
seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.195/2018 of
Adugodi Police Station pending on the file of the 71st City Civil
NC: 2024:KHC:30888
and Sessions Court, Bengaluru for the offences punishable
under Sections 313, 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 and also Section 3(1)(x)(xii) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989 (for short, 'SC/ST Act').
3. Heard Sri Naveed Ahmed, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Veeranna G.
Tigadi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the
materials on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The
complainant had married accused No.1. According to the
complainant, accused No.1 was residing separately along with
his relatives since 2017 and there was no occasion for the
complainant to file a complaint during June 2018. The learned
counsel submitted that the complainant filed MC No.2739/2018
against accused No.1 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The
said petition came to be filed on 02.06.2018. Even though the
NC: 2024:KHC:30888
complainant had admitted that accused No.1 was residing
separately since 2017 she has not made any allegation of
cruelty meted out by the accused, but however about 20 days
thereafter she filed a private complaint before the trial Court
making allegations without any particulars. According to the
complainant, accused No.4 had called the complainant over
phone and abused her by referring to her caste. There are no
particulars for the same. Under such circumstances, no offence
under the provisions of Special enactment is made out.
5. The learned counsel for that the petitioners has
placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 to contend
that the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act are to
be satisfied, that means to say that, it must be specifically
stated that the accused was not a member of the Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, the complainant belongs to such
caste, the accused intentionally insulted or intimidated with
intent to humiliate the complainant, in a place within public
(2008) 12 SCC 531
NC: 2024:KHC:30888
view. He contended that none of these requirements have been
complied in the present case.
6. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the
decision of Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others2 to contend that mandatory
requirement under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is not complied
with by filing the affidavit duly sworn to by the applicant who
seeks invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
Apparently, no such affidavit is filed in the present case to
satisfy the Magistrate regarding commission of the offence.
Ignoring all these facts, the learned Magistrate has proceeded
to refer the matter for investigation which is bad in law.
Hence, he prays for allowing the petitions, in the interest of
justice.
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader opposing the petition submits that paragraphs 8 to 10
of the complaint disclose the allegations made against the
accused. The complainant specifically stated that when she had
gone to attend the marriage of accused No.4, the accused did
(2015) 6 SCC 287
NC: 2024:KHC:30888
not permit her to enter the matrimonial house and abused her
in filthy language, by referring to her caste without permitting
her to take part in the pooja. Therefore, specific averments
were made in the complaint to invoke the penal provisions.
Under such circumstances, FIR registered by the police is not
required to be quashed. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the
petitions.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 supporting
the contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader
submitted that the private complaint refers to serious
allegations against all the accused and correctness of those
allegations could be considered by the trial Court during trial. It
is too premature to form an opinion that no such offence is
committed by the accused. Since there are materials to
constitute the offence, the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petitions.
9. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned
counsel for the both the parties, the point that would arise for
my consideration is:
NC: 2024:KHC:30888
"Whether the petitioners have made out any
ground to quash the criminal proceedings initiated
against them?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'affirmative' for the
following:
REASONS
10. The complainant filed the private complaint in PCR
No.29/2018 making allegations against accused Nos.1 to 4 for
the offences punishable under Sections 313, 420, 504, 576
read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and also under Sections 3, 10, 12
and 14 of the Section 3 (1)(x)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The
complainant has stated the hostility shown by accused Nos.2 to
4 during her marriage on 13.10.2014. She also states about
giving birth to a baby boy on 15.10.2015 at Dharwad that is
her parental home. She further states that she was invited to
attend the marriage of accused No.4 scheduled to be held at
Thirchi, Tamilnadu, but when she had gone there, she was not
received by accused No.1. When she went to her matrimonial
house, accused Nos.1 to 4 did not accept her and she was not
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30888
permitted to take part in any of the rituals and was made to
stand in the street and more over the accused abused her by
referring to her caste, as such, they have committed the
offences.
11. It is pertinent to note that the learned counsel for the
petitioners produced a copy of the memorandum of petition
filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in MC
No.2739/2018 as per Annexure-D. This is the petition filed by
the complainant against accused No.1 for restitution of conjugal
rights and as per the petition, which was filed on 02.06.2018,
she sought for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that
accused No.1 is residing separately since 08.05.2017. It is also
pertinent to note that there is no allegation against accused
No.1 or accused Nos. 2 to 4 in the said petition, but the private
complaint which was filed on 21.06.2018 refers to several
circumstances to invoke the penal provisions against accused
Nos.2 to 4. The private complaint is bald that means to say that
there is no reference to any of the dates and timings when the
accused had committed the offences. When the complainant
admitted that accused No.1 was residing separately since
08.05.2017 and when she filed private complainant making all
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30888
allegations on 21.06.2018, which is more than a year
thereafter, the complainant should have stated as to when the
incident had occurred. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the marriage of accused No.1 was performed
during 2016. In the private complaint there is a reference to
the occasion when accused No.4 was married but there is no
reference of the date and time. Moreover, it is contended that
accused No.4 had called her over phone to attract the
provisions of special enactment.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava
(supra). In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
considered huge number of cases that are registered on the
basis of private complaints and the learned Magistrates
invoking Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. referred the complaint for
investigation, which has resulted in filing the petition for
quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C
before this Court.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraphs 30 and 31
as under:
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30888
"30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in
this country where Section 156(3) CrPC
applications are to be supported by an
affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who
seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the
Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case,
the learned Magistrate would be well advised
to verify the truth and also can verify the
veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can
make the applicant more responsible. We are
compelled to say so as such kind of
applications are being filed in a routine
manner without taking any responsibility
whatsoever only to harass certain persons.
That apart, it becomes more disturbing and
alarming when one tries to pick up people who
are passing orders under a statutory provision
which can be challenged under the framework
of the said Act or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to
take undue advantage in a criminal court as if
somebody is determined to settle the scores.
31. We have already indicated that there has to be
prior applications under Sections 154(1) and
154(3) while filing a petition under Section
156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly
spelt out in the application and necessary
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30888
documents to that effect shall be filed. The
warrant for giving a direction that an
application under Section 156(3) be supported
by an affidavit is so that the person making
the application should be conscious and also
endeavour to see that no false affidavit is
made. It is because once an affidavit is found
to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in
accordance with law. This will deter him to
casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate
under Section 156(3). That apart, we have
already stated that the veracity of the same
can also be verified by the learned Magistrate,
regard being had to the nature of allegations
of the case. We are compelled to say so as a
number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere,
matrimonial dispute/family disputes,
commercial offences, medical negligence
cases, corruption cases and the cases where
there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating
criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita
Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned
Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in
lodging of the FIR."
14. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of Uttar
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30888
Pradesh and Others (supra) makes it clear that it is required
for the learned Magistrate to insist for filing an affidavit before
referring the complaint for investigation by registering FIR.
Admittedly, no such affidavit is filed by the complainant to
make her accountable for the allegations that are being made
against the accused.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed
reliance on the decision of Gorige Pentaiah (supra) wherein,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
6. In the instant case, the allegation of
Respondent 3 in the entire complaint is that on
27-5-2004, the appellant abused them with the
name of their caste. According to the basic
ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the
complainant ought to have alleged that the
appellant-accused was not a member of the
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he
(Respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or
intimidated by the accused with intent to
humiliate in a place within public view. In the
entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that
the appellant-accused was not a member of the
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30888
intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent
to humiliate Respondent 3 in a place within
public view. When the basic ingredients of the
offence are missing in the complaint, then
permitting such a complaint to continue and to
compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of
the criminal trial would be totally unjustified
leading to abuse of process of law."
(emphasis supplied)
16. On going through the FIR and the complaint filed by
the complainant in the present case, I do not find any such
details or averments in the allegations made against the
accused who are the husband and his relatives, which are
punishable under penal provisions under various enactments. I
do find considerable force in the contention taken by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that it is an abuse of process
of law and a private complaint filed against the husband and
other family members without there being any specific
allegations after admitting that she is residing separately from
accused No.1 since 08.05.2017. Hence, I am of the opinion that
FIR and the criminal proceedings initiated needs to be quashed.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30888
Accordingly, I answer in the affirmative and proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
(i) The petitions are allowed.
(ii) The FIR and criminal proceedings in
Cr.No.195/2018 pending on the file of the 71st City
Civil and Sessions Court, Begnaluru for the offences
punishable under Sections 313, 420, 504, 506 read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections
3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and
Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act
1989, are hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of the petition, the pending application
stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
SA
