High Court Karnataka High Court

R Sandesh vs State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
R Sandesh vs State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2010
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH COURT op KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 2339 DAY OF FE)B1§§j2'1£7£§YiV:.2V'£§i§1'fI) T  'A 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE  ;§:;%RAY;§NAv'S'WAM"{'V  %

CRIMINAL PETrr1c)1s§"%No. 6593] 200$
BETWEEN:   _ ' ..  

1 R SANBESH S/O SR: "i73.AMAi<;"RiSHP{A
AGED ABOUT 37'"YEARs'  1 ., 
PERNLfiNi.1fi-'2' Rio 1s«i0USEN£3.~» 5:3
BANN'!MANTAP'A' LA&f0Li'r  V .

MYSQRE 1.- s6'£3.o'175;. '  

2  SMT; .sHAN'i:'H.ar¢1MA %

'1.,_WI-Ff} C)}3'SRI<RA'MAvKRISHNA
AGED A13c'3m', 66._Y-EARS
PERNIANE-NT .R,*Q"'*HOUSE NO. 53

_ BAN:~J1:viA1s1i2?Ap_A'i;AYou'r

" MYSORE_- 560 915

 [   :%A'%4AKR1sHNA

_ " vs/Q*LA1--'E BOREGOWDA
"'A(}ED.RBOUT 75 YEARS
PEF$i¥L*§NENT R/O HOUSE NC). 58
 ..__BANNIMANTAP A LAYOUT
.. MYSGRE -- 550 ms  PEFITIONERS

W V{'B':tAsmcHIKI<AvENKATA1AH, Am.)

 '§AN'D :

'V  1 smrs 012' KARNATAKA

BY MANDI POLICE STAT ION

MANBI MOHALLA, KABER ROAD
,5'
E

E



MYSORE - 570 021
REP. BY ITS INSPECTGR OF POLICE
2 S J RAMDEV

S] O LATE JAVARAIAH

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS V

R /O NO. 248, MANASA FEOAD
5'?" MAIN, IT'I'IGEGUfiU   .   
MYSORE --- 570 010  ..RESPC#NDEN'I'S

(BY SR1 v1JAYAKUM;§.12'j%MA.'iA<;-E;  %

THIS PE"ITI'I'ION AIS 1FILi§IV3 f_u;"s 4:§g._ 7;;R.P.c PRAYING
TO QUASI-I THE v..F'IR{DATE,D .41'2;':.o.2oa7 msezsmnan AS

CRIME NO. s1"11';§;2o07 SAME"REGIs-TERED AS C.C. NO."

1539/2003' (:1N'~~TI:{E'  OF «'rH1_'G'E.' (JRDVN) 85 JMFC. MYSORE

  on for admission, this day,
the C0urt--..1_11ad¢ t11e,_f<3}.l=:}wiI1g :

ORDER

a ‘rhis jfiéiition is fiieci under Section 432 Cr.P.C.

quash the proceedings pending before the

%% 1~[f~ Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Mysore in (2.0

30.1539/2008.

U_,,,.,.«~«»$~’-«E~..

3

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the proceedings pending before’

Court requires to be quashed for the reasoI_;”ih%3,t

complaint, it has been alleged that ., 9»

in the family. The husband and

only uttered the v 2*

cause for the death of the dtgtuérxter ef eoxtjaplainant.

The learned ” uttering the

word; “it not attract Section 306

of IP(Vf’.-. ix’: jeubmission, he has relied on a

jz1dAg1::ent4″‘in_:’the- “er SWAMY PRAHALADDAS vs.

we M;P.AN’Q ANR (1995 SUPP(3) see 438).

No.3, it is submitted that 3:’ the death

is-..4__ea:1eedj’.: by mere uttering the words, it wilt not

AAeonstittite the effezxee for the purpose of Sectiee 306

Fofieerhzg the law Eaid deem. by the Supreme

this Ceurt $21 the case at’ K.RAMAKRISI~INAPPA

VS. STATE OF KARNATMQR {2086 CRL.L.J.4314) has

held that mere uttering words eaarmet be said to be

“i

4
instigation to commit suicide. It is subniitted by the

learned Counsel te quash the proceedings peneiiing in

C.C.No.1539/2008. ” ° V

3. The learned Government Pleaderj: iay 4_

the statements of the eye witnesses it the

basis of the death note efthe dettased

there was persistent haraee§:a.ent Vite. fer’

whiehmeheet From the complaint,
it is “fl0’1;:;aeci– »ii2.1{).2{){}7 she contacted the

eeI:2p1ati33eizt:’a£.€).(}0 eiizi, and reported the harassment

“the feifiiiyiyand parents~in–1aw and in t.1.1I’n the

‘VVeeidciegitiiijtiettitfirespondent stated that he would come in

the eyfezeiitigi But, before he came, he has received at Cal}

_ftfo1:r:i ttie heuse ef the daughter that she hast committed

suieide. This is a ease fer trial for an effeizee punishable

i V’ V. ~}’I,111Ci€I’ Seetion 4§8A and 396 IPC and at this §u;1etu3*e, if

this Court intexferee with the qtiashing of the

proceedings, the same would be contrary

previsions of iaw.

4. The case was committed

same is pending. New t.he’e11a1gee,_a3*e yest”;£Q’: L.

When an ailegation of “is,T_&ade, in the
interest of public, thesentire is required to

be concluded,’ If basis ef the

sL2bI:;is’s10I§.s, ,;t:ii1e Counsel and also the

pleadfiag proceedings, that itself wfll

go Aagailist i11terest and also the criminal

‘ « }1′”.vsr1’:sp11.1ci’enee. “””

H Counselhgetitiener though is referable, III

..5;«.The.decision of the Supreme Court. referred to

o

the ease, in the fight of the materia} placed, the

” * ieii:i;’eV”mat£er requires to be ceneiuded. Whether before

charge er after the charge, it is rqizet the yandsfick to

be Ioeked, but the Court sheuld ieek mm whether the

materiai placed before the Court are

interfere. On the basis of the.::r:z;teri€_;1s_v1u3Ié;r:ecii valoflg ‘

with the petition and also the made

iearned Government Pieaéer, ‘ suc:h:”

circumstance to intezffere t.’fie”prc§:eedings.
Accoréingly, I pass the I’,

The petitiqxzis d_ism.iV§s;sed&§”v”.j”– ..