Karnataka High Court
Smt. Supriya W/O Dinesh Savant Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16484
CRL.P No. 102390 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102390 OF 2024
(439(2)(Cr.PC)/483(3)(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUPRIYA W/O. DINESH SAVANT PATIL,
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER,
R/O. SAWKAR GALLI, KADOLI,
TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
POLICE INSPECTOR WOMEN POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI,
R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011.
2. SRI DINESH BHAURAO PATIL,
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE/BUSINESS,
R/O. PLOT NO.18/19, RAUT INDUSTRIAL AREA,
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B KHANAPUR RAOD, UDYAMBAG,
SHELAR DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 3. SRI BHAURAO NARAYAN PATIL,
KARNATAKA
AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. PLOT NO.18/19, RAUT INDUSTRIAL AREA,
KHANAPUR ROAD, UDYAMBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
4. SMT. LAXMI W/O. BHAURAO PATIL,
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER,
R/O. PLOT NO.18/19, RAUT INDUSTRIAL AREA,
KHANAPUR ROAD, UDYAMBAG,
DIST. BEALGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI GIRISH A.YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16484
CRL.P No. 102390 of 2024
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2)
R/W 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED
04.07.2024 GRANTING BAIL IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO
4 IN CC NO.713/2017 PASSED BY THE JMFC II COURT, BELAGAVI,
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A, 504, 506,
109 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 TO
SURRENDER BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI)
Petitioner who is complainant has filed this petition
under Section 439 (2) read with section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') to set aside
the order dated 04.07.2024, granting bail in favour of
respondents Nos.2 to 4, who are accused Nos.1 to 3
before the trial Court and direct them to surrender before
the trial Court.
2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has
contended that the impugned order is highly illegal,
arbitrary, without jurisdiction and hence, liable to be
quashed. On 13.03.2017, the trial Court granted bail to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16484
respondent Nos.2 to 4 with certain conditions, including
that they shall not threaten or abuse the witnesses.
However, they have violated the conditions by threatening
and abusing CWs.1 and 6. Therefore, prosecution filed
application seeking cancellation of bail. Vide order dated
29.08.2022, the trial Court cancelled the bail granted to
respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2.1 Against the said order, they filed a criminal
revision petition No.167/2022 and Criminal Misc.
No.390/2024. Both were rejected. Once again, respondent
Nos.2 to 4 filed application before the trial Court and it
came to be allowed. The same is challenged in this
petition. When the trial Court has cancelled the bail
granted to respondent Nos.2 to 4 and it is confirmed by
the Sessions Court, question of the trial Court once again
granting bail would not arise and pray to set aside the
impugned order and the directed the trial Court to take
respondent Nos.2 to 4 to custody and proceed with the
matter.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16484
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that based on the
complaint filed by the petitioner, charge sheet came to be
filed against respondent Nos.2 to 4. Since 2017, evidence
is going on. It is denied that respondent Nos.2 to 4
violated the conditions of the bail. On the other hand,
petitioner and her brother assaulted respondent Nos.2 to 4
and they have also filed a complaint in Crime No.21/2022
and to overcome the same, false allegations were made
and complaint was filed against them.
3.1 Already the marriage between complainant and
respondent No.2 is dissolved in M.C.No.407/2017 dated
13.01.2019. In fact, complainant is not tendering herself
for cross examination and ultimately the trial Court has
noted on 06.01.2024 that, she has not tendered for cross
examination.
3.2 The trial Court without examining these aspects
had allowed the application filed by complainant for
cancellation of bail. In the Criminal Revision Petition
No.167/2022, the Sessions Court has refused to grant
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16484
relief on the ground of maintainability. Again in Criminal
Misc. No.390/2024, it has refused to grant bail to
respondent Nos.2 to 4, on the ground that in the earlier
petition, it has refused to interfere and if bail is granted, it
amounts to sitting in appeal over the order of the trial
Court canceling the bail. Therefore, respondent Nos.2 to 4
have filed application for fresh bail and the same has been
allowed and prayed to reject the petition and direct the
parties to proceed with the matter diligently.
4. Heard arguments and peruse the record.
5. Respondent No.2 is the son of respondent No.3
and 4. The marriage of petitioner and respondent No.2
was performed on 03.03.2016. Alleging that she was
driven out of the matrimonial home within a period of 6
months, i.e on 25.09.2016, petitioner filed a complaint
against respondent Nos.2 to 4 on 09.03.2017. During this
stage, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 secured bail on 13.03.2017.
While recording of evidence was going on, at the instance
of petitioner and prosecution came up with an application
under Section 437(5) Cr.P.C. to cancel the bail granted to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16484
respondent Nos.2 to 4 contending that on 06.01.2022,
when CWs.1 and 6 had come to Court to give evidence,
they were abused in filly language and life threat was
given and on the basis of complaint filed, Crime
No.21/2022 is registered.
6. Considering this respondent Nos.2 to 4, came
up with an allegation that in fact, CWs.1 and 6 assaulted
them and they have filed a complaint in Crime No.21/2022
against them. They also claimed that already the marriage
between petitioner and respondent No.2 is dissolved in
M.C.No.407/2017 on 13.01.2019 itself and sought for
rejection of the said application.
7. Perusal of the order canceling the bail
granted to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 clearly indicates that
the trial Court has not at all examined the allegations
made in the application seeking cancellation of bail. By
observing that while granting bail, the respondents
were directed not to temper with the prosecution
witnesses, it has proceeded to allow the application.
Unfortunately, respondent Nos.2 to 4 instead of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16484
approaching this Court challenging the said order,
approached the Session Court under Section 397
Cr.P.C. On the ground that the revision is not
maintainable against an interim order, the Sessions
Court refused to interfere. Again, respondent Nos.2 to
4 approached the same Court with a petition under
Section 439 (1) Cr.P.C. Once again, the Session Court
refused to interfere on the ground that since already it
has refused to interfere in the earlier order, it would
amount to sitting on the judgment of its order.
8. In the light of the observations made during
the course of the said orders, once again, the
respondents have approached the trial Court. The trial
Court has granted bail which is being challenged in the
present petition.
9. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel
for respondent Nos.2 to 4, in order to establish that the
respondent Nos.2 to 4 have violated the terms and
conditions of the bail granted to them, the prosecution
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16484
has not placed any material on record. In fact,
respondent Nos.2 to 4 have denied that any such
incident had taken place and on the other hand, alleged
that it was CWs.1 and 6 who assaulted them and they
have also filed complaint in Crime No.21/2022.
10. The alleged violation of terms and conditions
of the bail is based on disputed facts and without being
convinced about the same, the trial Court erred in
canceling the bail only on the basis of allegations made
in the application. Whether the respondents were the
aggressors or CWs.1 and 6 were the persons who
assaulted them is a matter required to be established
at a trial in the charge sheet that would be filed based
on their complaints. Instead of approaching this Court
under provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., the respondent
Nos.2 to 4 unnecessarily wasted the time before the
Sessions Court.
11. It is also relevant to note that respondent
Nos.3 and 4 are senior citizens. The order sheet also
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16484
indicates that complainant consistently failed to tender
herself for cross examination. Ultimately on 06.01.2024
the trial Court has discarded her evidence as not
tendered for cross examination. The complaint is of the
year 2017. Despite expiry of 7 years, the trial has not
concluded. It appears the parties are more interested in
harassing each other rather than getting the relief. In
the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that this is not a fit case to interfere
with the impugned order and accordingly, the
following;
ORDER
i. Petition filed by the
petitioner/complainant under Section 439
(2) read with section 482 of the Cr.P.C is
rejected.
ii. The trial Court is directed to conclude the
trial and disposed of the matter at the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16484
earliest, not beyond a period of 6 months
from the date of receipt of this order.
iii. Send a copy of this order to the trial
Court fourth with.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI)
JUDGE
AC, CT: UMD
