Mallappa S/O. Hanumantappa … vs Executive Officer, Shri. Renuka … on 18 December, 2014

Karnataka High Court
Mallappa S/O. Hanumantappa … vs Executive Officer, Shri. Renuka … on 18 December, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
                               1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH
     DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014

                           BEFORE

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

      WRIT PETITION No. 111680 OF 2014 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

Mallappa S/o Hanumantappa Antaknnavar
Age: 49 Years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Yellaman Gudda,
Savadatti, District: Belgaum - 591126
                                               ... PETITIONER

(By Sri. Shrikant T Patil and Rohit S Patil, Advocates)


AND

1.   Executive Officer,
     Shri. Renuka Yellamma Devastana
     Yellammangudda, Taluk : Savadatti
     District: Belgaum - 591126

2.   President
     Administrative Committee
     Shri. Renuka Yellamman Devastana
     Yellammangudda, Taluk : Savadatti,
     District: Belgaum - 591126
                                2

3.   The Deputy Commissioner
     Office of Deputy Commissioner
     Belgaum - 591126
                                              ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. Sunil S Desai for Respondent No.1
Respondent No.2 Served
Smt. K.Vidyavathi, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.3)
                               ---

      This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash public auction notice
dated Nill of November 2014 issued by respondent No. 1 vide
Annexure-J.

      This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in
'B' Group this day, the Court made the following:

                            ORDER

The learned Additional Government Advocate is directed

to take notice on behalf of respondent no.3

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in possession

of the property in question and that the term, even according to

the respondents, would end on 1.4.2015.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondent would submit

that there is no intention to disturb or interfere with the
3

possession of the petitioner till 1.4.1015. The petitioner is at

liberty to participate in the auction that is proposed in respect of

the premises.

Recording the submission of the counsel for the

respondent that the petitioner shall not be disturbed from the

possession of the premises, otherwise than under due process of

law, the petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nv

Ravi S/O. Mogannagowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2014

Karnataka High Court
Ravi S/O. Mogannagowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
                              1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

   DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014

                            BEFORE
   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.487 OF 2009

Between:
Ravi S/o Mogannagowda
Aged about 34 years
Occupation: Petty business
R/o House No.169, Police Colony
Beeranahallikere, Hassan
Present Address:
House No.211, Hemavathi Extention
13th Ward, Krishnarajpet
Mandya District                        ... Appellant

(By Shri R.B.Deshpande, Advocate)


And:
The State of Karnataka by
Extention Police Hassan              ... Respondent

(By Shri K.R.Keshavamurthy, SPP1)
                             *****
                                2

       This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2)
Cr.P.C praying to set-aside conviction and sentence dated
05.06.2009 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan in
Sessions Case No.33/2004 - convicting the appellant/accused
for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 313 and 506 of
IPC and the appellant/accused sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years and shall sentenced to
pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
498-A of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months, he
shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years
and shall sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 313 of IPC and in default of payment
of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of two years, and he shall undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years and shall sentenced to
pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
506(II) of IPC, and in default of payment of fine, he shall
further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
months. All the sentences award shall run concurrently. The
appellant/accused prays that he be acquitted.

      This Appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court
delivered the following:-

                         JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned State Public Prosecutor.

3

2. The appellant was accused No.1 along with his parents

who were accused Nos.2 and 3, respectively. The complainant

was the wife of accused No.1, to whom he had been married as

on 3.6.1996. It was alleged that at the time of her marriage, her

father, B.R.Gowda, had provided dowry in terms of cash of

Rs.1,15,000/- and had provided gold jewellery weighing 100

grams. Even after having received the same, the accused had

insisted on she bringing additional dowry in terms of cash and

also to obtain a transfer of a house standing in the name of her

mother in favour of the accused and it is claimed that this

harassment and demands caused a lot of physical and mental

agony to the complainant from 3.6.1996 till 3.3.1997, when

apparently, she withdrew from the society of the accused. It is

further claimed that when she was pregnant with a child, she

was forced to undergo abortion, while ensuring that she was

unconscious. It is alleged that she was administered a drug and

when she was in an unconscious state, the child was aborted
4

and further there were constant threats of putting her to death.

It was particularly alleged that accused No.1, in the presence of

his brother and sister-in-law, had threatened to burn her alive.

It is on these allegations that a case was registered against the 3

accused for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 313,

506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for brevity). Though the FIR

was registered including for the offences punishable under

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the

charge sheet did not include those provisions. The charge sheet

having being filed after further investigation by the police and

after further proceedings and the Court having framed charges,

the accused had pleaded not guilty and after having recorded

the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”

for brevity) and after hearing the arguments of the counsel for

the parties, the court below had framed charges. The
5

prosecution had then tendered evidence through PWs.1 to 12

and had got marked several exhibits in order to prove the case

against the accused.

3. After hearing the parties and the counsel for the accused,

the court below framed the following points for consideration:

“1) Does the prosecution prove that, the accused
were given physical as well as mental
harassment to the complainant Sulochana in
order to bring additional dowry from her
parents’ house despite of received dowry in
terms of cash and gold jewelleries and thereby
committed an offence punishable under Section
498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code?

2) Does the prosecution prove that, the accused
have forcibly got abortion of the complainant
Sulochana without her consent and thereby
committed an offence punishable under Section
313 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code?

6

3) Does the prosecution prove that the accused
have committed an offence punishable under
Section 506 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code by causing criminal intimidation
saying that as to do away her life by dousing
the kerosene and also made her as a prostitute?”

4. The court below has answered all the points in

affirmative, insofar accused No.1 is concerned and in the

negative, insofar as accused 2 and 3 are concerned and has

convicted accused No.1 and sentenced him to imprisonment for

a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the

offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine

of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 313

IPC and to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to

pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under

Section 506 (II) IPC. It is that which is under challenge in the

present appeal.

7

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would point out

that there is an inordinate and inexplicable delay in filing the

complaint before the police and in the FIR reaching the

jurisdictional Magistrate and this delay would certainly explain

the false case that is sought to be concocted against the

appellant with the active connivance of PWs.4 to 7 who were

all her close relatives, namely, her parents and her sisters. The

court below has placed reliance only on the evidence of those

witnesses, which could not have been acted upon. The learned

counsel would point out that the admitted position is that the

complainant lived in her matrimonial home for a period of 9

months and even during that period of 9 months, she was

constantly visiting her parental home and remaining there and

intermittently coming back to her matrimonial home and had

ultimately withdrawn from the society of the appellant. As on

the date of tendering evidence, she had remained apart from the

complainant for a period of 11 years and by that time, the
8

marriage stood dissolved, on the complainant herself having

filed a petition for divorce. This would indicate that the

complainant has lodged the complaint out of sheer spite. As is

evident from the record, no case was made out against the

parents of accused, as found by the trial court. It is only on the

basis of evidence of PWs.3 to 7 that the court has convicted the

present appellant. In this regard, he would submit that insofar

as the alleged offence punishable under Section 498-A is

concerned, the burden was heavy on the prosecution to

establish that the appellant had meted out cruelty to the

complainant of a degree that would have driven her to commit

suicide. From the allegations made, it is clear that they are at

best self-serving and not supported by any cogent evidence to

corroborate the same. The complainant has even admitted that

there was no physical violence at any point of time meted out to

her. Therefore, the oral demands said to have been made by

accused No.1, is not even claimed by any of the witnesses,
9

namely, PWs.4 to 7 as regards, any such demand being made

by the parents of the appellant, which would have been the

normal course of conduct in the family seeking additional

dowry, as sought to be made out by PW3. This significant

circumstance is overlooked by the court below and the

allegations being made solely against accused No.1 of

continuous demands for dowry, therefore, was not to the

hearing or in the presence of any of the witnesses and it is on

the basis of information which may have been provided by the

complainant that the other witnesses have purportedly stated

about the alleged cruelty meted out to the complainant. The

learned counsel would take this Court through the record to

demonstrate that the allegations in the complaint have been

vastly varied and magnified in the course of evidence of the

complainant herself and the fact that the other witnesses,

namely, PWs.4 to 7 have tried to match her allegations, word

for word, would be an indication that it was a got up case, only
10

initiated to cause harassment and torture to the appellant and his

family. Hence, to establish a case for an offence punishable

under Section 498-A, which has visited the appellant with

stringent punishment now imposed by the trial court, the burden

was heavy on the prosecution, which cannot be said to be

discharged on the basis of evidence of PWs.3 to 7 and in this

regard, the learned counsel would also take this Court through

the rather lengthier judgment of the Trial Court, which merely

reiterates the statements made by the several witnesses in

ultimately concluding that the offence punishable under Section

498-A has been established. The further claim that there were

constant threats to her life and that accused No.1 especially,

threatened to do away with her life and put her out as a

prostitute, are self-serving claims which have not been

corroborated by independent witnesses.

11

6. Insofar as the allegation of causing abortion against the

will of the complainant is concerned, there is no mention of the

same in the complaint. However, it is only during the course of

her evidence that she has embarked to make allegations on the

appellant. But, however, it was included in the charge sheet,

possibly on a subsequent statement made by the complainant.

Insofar as the said allegation is concerned, in any case, it is not

established by any cogent evidence. The medical practitioner

who is said to have carried out the abortion has been examined

as PW10. Though the court below has referred to the

examination-in-chief, as regards the abortion having been

carried out on the complainant, the cross-examination where it

has been elicited as to the manner and the occasion for

performing such a procedure has been overlooked. In that, it

was the opinion of the medical practitioner herself that in view

of improper development of the feotus, it was necessary to

cause abortion and it was with the consent of the complainant
12

that such a procedure was carried out. This has been elicited

from PW10 – the medical practitioner. Therefore, the claim of

the complainant to the effect that she was first rendered

unconscious and thereafter the procedure was carried out on her

to abort the feotus is a wild allegation, which has been made as

an after thought, as is evident from the fact that the allegation

does not figure in the complaint, but has been incorporated in

the charge sheet as an after thought. Hence, the finding of the

court below that the appellant was guilty of causing such

abortion and having been imposed a harsh punishment of 10

years in respect of the same, is not based on any positive

evidence. On the other hand, in the face of evidence that there

was no such occasion for the medical practitioner to carry out

abortion on an unconscious woman. The court below has

proceeded to impose punishment, which results in a miscarriage

of justice.

13

7. The allegations insofar as the offence punishable under

Section 506 IPC, is nothing but a fall out of the allegations

made in respect of offence punishable under Section 498-A.

When that has not been proved with any degree of proof, it

cannot be said that the threats to the life and limb of the

complainant has been held out by the accused, as claimed in the

absence of satisfying corroborating evidence. Therefore, on a

close examination of the record and the even lengthier

judgment of the trial court, it is clear that except the evidence of

PWs.3 to 7, there is no evidence of any independent witness as

regards the commission of any offences as against accused

No.1. More particularly, when the allegations were common as

against accused 1 to 3, the court below having been found that

no case was made out insofar as accused 2 and 3 are concerned,

it is indeed inexplicable that the court has been able to conclude

that the prosecution has established its case against accused

No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. This is indeed not tenable
14

and therefore, cannot be said on the basis of the material

evidence on record that there was such a degree of cruelty

meted out to the complainant and that the accused had gone to

the extent of forcibly having the complainant abort her child are

established beyond all reasonable doubt.

8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of

the court below, insofar as it convicts accused No.1, is set aside.

Accused No.1 is acquitted. The bail bond stands cancelled.

The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded

to him.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AHB

Aslam Sab Mehaboobsab Ramadurg vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2014

Karnataka High Court
Aslam Sab Mehaboobsab Ramadurg vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
                          1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH
      DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014

                       BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100037/2014

BETWEEN:

ASLAM SAB MEHABOOBSAB RAMADURG
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE
R/O. MYADAR ONI, OLD HUBLI
HUBLI.
DIST: DHARWAD.
                                        ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.: VIJAY MALALI ADV. FOR M/S. PATIL & MALALI
ASSOCIATES)


AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KAMARIPETH P S HUBLI
R/BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD.
                                       ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.V.M.BN\ANAKAR, ADDL.SPP)


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL
IN KAMARIPETH P S CRIME 22/2013 AND IN CC
                                 2




NO.1463/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C-II
COURT AT HUBLI DIST: DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307 AND 436 OF IPC.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner

making allegations that on 6/4/2013 at about 5.30 pm, the

accused-petitioner went to the pan shop of the complainant

by name Mujpal Abdul Ajiz, with a bottle of petrol, he blowed

the petrol on the face of the complainant and lit the fire, due

to which the complainant has suffered 20-30% of burn

injures to his face and other parts of his body. In the

complaint, it is not stated what was the reason for the

accused to do that particular act. Whether there was any ill

will or hatred between the complainant and the accused.

The charge sheet papers also disclose that the injured was

admitted in the hospital and subsequently discharged. The

said certificate also shows that he suffered grievous injury.

There is absolutely no mention in the injury certificate that

the said injuries are fatal in nature. There is no life threat so
3

far as complainant is concerned. The petitioner was arrested

on 6/4/2013 and since then he has been in judicial custody.

He is no more required for any further interrogation,

investigation etc.

2. Under the above said circumstances, at this stage, it

is very difficult to draw an interference that he had any illicit

intention to kill the complainant as such. That has to be

established during the course of full dressed trial.

3. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the

case, it is just and necessary to release the petitioner on bail.

The trial Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that

the petitioner has suppressed before the Court, the rejection

of previous bail petition by the same Court. But, this

particular aspect may not be in straight jacket manner

attributed to the accused, because it is the duty of the

counsel who appear for the accused to ascertain what

happened to the previous bail petition. Under the above said

circumstances, that cannot be a ground to reject the bail

petition if he is otherwise entitled to.

4

Hence, the following order is passed:-

ORDER

Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby

allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on

bail subject to the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a

sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety for

the likesum to the satisfaction of the Committal

Court / trial Court as the case may be.

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the

investigation or tampering the prosecution

witnesses.

iii) He shall attend Committal / trial Court on all

future hearing dates unless prevented by any

genuine cause.

iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of

the trial Court without prior permission of the
5

Court till the case registered against him is

disposed of.

SD/-

JUDGE
Vmb

The General Manager vs Ashok on 21 October, 2013

Karnataka High Court
The General Manager vs Ashok on 21 October, 2013
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                       DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013

                              BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3576 OF 2008 (MV)

Between

1. The General Manager
   KSRTC,
   K.H. Double Road, Shantinagar
   Central Law Office
   Bangalore

2. The Deputy General Manager
   Internal Insurance Fund KSRTC
   K.H. Double Road, Shantinagar
   Central Law Office
   Bangalore
   after bifurcation of the Corporation
   the appellant is called as
   The Managing Director, NWKRTC
   Central Office, Gokul Road, Hubli
   District: Dharwad
   Represented by is Chief Law Officer
   Central Office, Hubli
                                                 ...Appellants
(by Shri Shivakumar S. Badavadagi, Advocate)

And:

Ashok
R/o Parappa Halabhavi
Aged about 34 years
Occ: Painter, R/o Lolasar,
Taluk: Gokak
                                 2




District: Belgaum
                                                      ...Respondent

      This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act against the judgment and award dated 16.11.2006 passed in
MVC No.910 of 2001 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and
Additional MACT, Gokak.

       This appeal coming on for orders, this day, the Court made
the following:

                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the Corporation against the

Judgment and award dated 16th November 2006 passed in MVC

No.910 of 2001. The respondent, who is the claimant, filed

claim petition for the injuries sustained in the accident on 5th

July 2000. Originally, this appeal was filed before the Principal

Bench at Bangalore and after constitution of Circuit Bench, this

appeal was transmitted from Bangalore Bench to this Bench.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this appeal

notice was ordered on 22nd August 2013 when the appeal came

up before this Court for taking steps for service of notice. He

further submits that he has paid the process today.

2. The judgment and award impugned in this appeal has

been examined in the light of the reasons assigned by the
3

Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation of

Rs.1,04,800/-. The claimant has proved the accident and the

nature of injury by examining PW.2 Doctor and has marked

documents as per Exhibits P1 to P25. On behalf of the

respondent-appellant herein, none has been examined and no

document has been marked.

3. I have also gone through the discussion made by the

Tribunal in awarding the said compensation. I find that the

Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation. Hence, I am not

inclined to interfere in the matter.

4. The most heart-burning thing to be noticed in this case

is that till today i.e. even after the lapse of thirteen years, the

claimant has failed to get the compensation. The object of the

Motor Accidents Compensation Act, 1999 is to extend relief

within the earliest possible time. By invoking one or the other

reason, this appeal is being dodged, for which, including the

learned counsel, to some extent the management of the

appellant is also responsible. Under the circumstance, I dispose

of this matter directing the appellant Corporation to deposit the
4

entire amount, including the amount in deposit before this Court,

within a period of six weeks from today. Amount in deposit be

transmitted to the Tribunal. In terms of the above, the appeal

stands disposed of.

SD/-

JUDGE

lnn

Sri V. Venkateshulu vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2013

Karnataka High Court
Sri V. Venkateshulu vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2013
Author: Chief Justice B.V.Nagarathna
                           -1-
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
          DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
                         PRESENT
        THE HON' BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                           AND
         THE HON' BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
                WP NO.37154/2013 (GM-MMS)
BETWEEN

SRI V. VENKATESHULU S/O LATE V MAREPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.4, VEERANNAGOWDA COLONY
INFANTRY ROAD, BELLARY
BELLARY DISTRICT-583103
                                            ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.SHANKRAPPA, ADV. FOR
M/S.M.T.NANAIAH ASSTS. ADVS.)

AND

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
       VIDHANA SOUDHA
       BANGALORE 560 001

2.     THE SECRETARY - II (MINES)
       DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
       VIKAS SOUDHA
       BANGALORE 560 001

3.     THE DIRECTOR
       DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
       KHANIJ BHAVAN, R C ROAD
       BANGALORE 560 001

4.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       BELLARY DISTRICT
       BELLARY 583 101

5.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       BELLARY DISTRICT
       BELLARY 583 101
                             -2-
6.   THE TAHSILDHAR
     BELLARY TOWN, BELLARY
     BELLARY DISTRICT 583 101
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.R.G.KOLLE, AGA)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH ANNEXURE-L DATED 16.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT AND ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS
TO CONDUCT RE-SURVEY IN SY.NO.326 OF JANAKUNTE
VILLAGE, BELLARY TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT TO THE
EXTENT OF 140.20 ACRES AND SUBMIT THE FARE REPORT TO
THE SUPREME COURT AND CEC AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 19.07.2013 AT ANNEXURE-Z4.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

D.H.WAGHELA, C.J. (Oral) :

1. Petition is disposed as withdrawn with liberty, and for

the purpose, of approaching the Hon’ble Supreme Court for

appropriate relief.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

mv

Gangadhar vs State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2013

Karnataka High Court
Gangadhar vs State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2013
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana
                              1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

           DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2013

                           BEFORE
     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. N. KESHAVANARAYANA

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.2593/2013

BETWEEN:

Gangadhar,
S/o. Mayanna,
Aged about 29 years,
Residing at No.95, 1st Main Road,
Farm Road, Sannakki Bylu,
Vrushabhavathinagara,
Kamakshipalya,
Bangalore-560 079,
Native of Mayannagowdanapalya Village,
Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District-572 124.                   ... Petitioner

(By Smt.R.Radha, Advocate)


AND:

1.     State of Karnataka,
       By Kamakshipalya Police Station,
       Bangalore,
       Represented by Public Prosecutor,
       High Court Building,
       Bangalore-560 001.

2.     Smt.Deepu.H.J.,
       Aged about 21 years,
       W/o. Gangadhar,
       D/o. Jagadeesh,
       Handrangi Village,
       Konanur Hobli,
                                2

     Arakalgud Taluk,
     Hassan District-573 125.            ... Respondents

(By Sri.B.Raja Subramanya Bhat, HCGP for R-1)

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.656/2012 in the
Kamakshipalya        Police    Station,     Bangalore     now
C.C.No.3132/2013 file pending before the V Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and all the subsequent
proceedings arising there from in view of compromise arrived
between the parties.

     This Criminal Petition coming for admission on this day,
the Court made the following:

                             ORDER

In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the

petitioner arraigned as accused in C.C. No.3132/2013

pending on the file of the V-Additional C.M.M., Bangalore,

has sought for quashing the prosecution launched against

him for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 376,

506 of IPC.

2) The 2nd respondent is the prosecutrix, on whose

complaint, the 1st Respondent-Police registered the case in

Crime No.656/2012, investigated the matter and filed the

charge sheet.

3

3) During investigation, the petitioner was

arrested. The application filed by him for grant of bail

came to be rejected by the Sessions Court. However, in the

petition, filed by him before this court in Criminal Petition

No.104/2013, when he was brought before this Court

under a body warrant, he submitted that he is in love with

the complainant and he is willing to marry her. The

complainant-Respondent No.2 was also present before this

Court and made a submission that she is willing to marry

him. In the light of that submission, the petitioner was

granted interim bail for a period of 10 days on executing a

bond and he was directed to surrender before the court on

28.03.2013. On 28.03.2013, the petitioner surrendered

before this court. On that day, the 2nd respondent herein

filed a memo with a copy of the Certificate of Registration

of Marriage between her and the petitioner, and the same

was taken on record. In the light of the subsequent

development of the petitioner marrying the 2nd respondent-

complainant, this court by order dated 28.03.2013, granted

bail to the petitioner. Thereafter, on completion of
4

investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. Before this

court, the 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit to the effect

that she had love affair with the petitioner, however, the

parents of the petitioner did not immediately accept for

their marriage, as a result, the petitioner was postponing

the marriage, though she kept on forcing him for their

marriage immediately. She has further stated in her

affidavit that the petitioner told her that, after convincing

his parents, he would arrange for the marriage and since

she was not happy with that representation, and in that

temperament, she went to police station and informed the

police requesting them to advise the petitioner to marry

her, however, the police obtained her signature on the

complaint drafted by them. She has further stated that,

after lodging the complaint when the matter was pending

before the Court, they married and their marriage was

registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kunigal Taluk

and presently they are residing together and there is no

dispute or misunderstanding between them. A copy of the

marriage certificate is also produced along with this
5

petition. The original Certificate of Registration of Marriage

is also made available for perusal of this court. As could be

seen from the certificate, the marriage of the petitioner and

the 2nd respondent was solemnized on 25.03.2013 and the

same was registered on that day in the office of the

Marriage Officer, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District.

4) Both the petitioner and the 2nd respondents

are present in person before this Court. The 2nd

respondent submitted that she has been residing with the

petitioner and that they have been residing as husband and

wife for the last four months and there has been no dispute

or misunderstanding between them since the date of

marriage.

5) As noticed supra, according to Respondent

No.2, on account of the petitioner’s refusal to marry her

immediately, she requested the police to advise the

petitioner properly to marry her immediately. Having

regard to the subsequent development and in view of the

fact that the petitioner has married the 2nd respondent and
6

since they have been living happily as husband and wife,

no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution

against the petitioner. The continuance of the prosecution

would be waste of precious public time of the court and

would also cause embarrassment to the parties, which

may also strain the marital relationship. The trial of the

case, for completion of the ritual, is not required to be

completed. In this view of the matter, the prosecution

launched against the petitioner is required to be quashed in

exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

6) In the result, the petition is allowed. The

prosecution launched against the petitioner in C.C.

No.3132/2013 on the file of the V-Additional C.M.M.,

Bangalore, is hereby quashed.

SD/-

JUDGE

KGR*

Gangadhar vs State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2013

Karnataka High Court
Gangadhar vs State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2013
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana
                              1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

           DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2013

                           BEFORE
     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. N. KESHAVANARAYANA

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.2593/2013

BETWEEN:

Gangadhar,
S/o. Mayanna,
Aged about 29 years,
Residing at No.95, 1st Main Road,
Farm Road, Sannakki Bylu,
Vrushabhavathinagara,
Kamakshipalya,
Bangalore-560 079,
Native of Mayannagowdanapalya Village,
Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District-572 124.                   ... Petitioner

(By Smt.R.Radha, Advocate)


AND:

1.     State of Karnataka,
       By Kamakshipalya Police Station,
       Bangalore,
       Represented by Public Prosecutor,
       High Court Building,
       Bangalore-560 001.

2.     Smt.Deepu.H.J.,
       Aged about 21 years,
       W/o. Gangadhar,
       D/o. Jagadeesh,
       Handrangi Village,
       Konanur Hobli,
                                2

     Arakalgud Taluk,
     Hassan District-573 125.            ... Respondents

(By Sri.B.Raja Subramanya Bhat, HCGP for R-1)

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.656/2012 in the
Kamakshipalya        Police    Station,     Bangalore     now
C.C.No.3132/2013 file pending before the V Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and all the subsequent
proceedings arising there from in view of compromise arrived
between the parties.

     This Criminal Petition coming for admission on this day,
the Court made the following:

                             ORDER

In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the

petitioner arraigned as accused in C.C. No.3132/2013

pending on the file of the V-Additional C.M.M., Bangalore,

has sought for quashing the prosecution launched against

him for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 376,

506 of IPC.

2) The 2nd respondent is the prosecutrix, on whose

complaint, the 1st Respondent-Police registered the case in

Crime No.656/2012, investigated the matter and filed the

charge sheet.

3

3) During investigation, the petitioner was

arrested. The application filed by him for grant of bail

came to be rejected by the Sessions Court. However, in the

petition, filed by him before this court in Criminal Petition

No.104/2013, when he was brought before this Court

under a body warrant, he submitted that he is in love with

the complainant and he is willing to marry her. The

complainant-Respondent No.2 was also present before this

Court and made a submission that she is willing to marry

him. In the light of that submission, the petitioner was

granted interim bail for a period of 10 days on executing a

bond and he was directed to surrender before the court on

28.03.2013. On 28.03.2013, the petitioner surrendered

before this court. On that day, the 2nd respondent herein

filed a memo with a copy of the Certificate of Registration

of Marriage between her and the petitioner, and the same

was taken on record. In the light of the subsequent

development of the petitioner marrying the 2nd respondent-

complainant, this court by order dated 28.03.2013, granted

bail to the petitioner. Thereafter, on completion of
4

investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. Before this

court, the 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit to the effect

that she had love affair with the petitioner, however, the

parents of the petitioner did not immediately accept for

their marriage, as a result, the petitioner was postponing

the marriage, though she kept on forcing him for their

marriage immediately. She has further stated in her

affidavit that the petitioner told her that, after convincing

his parents, he would arrange for the marriage and since

she was not happy with that representation, and in that

temperament, she went to police station and informed the

police requesting them to advise the petitioner to marry

her, however, the police obtained her signature on the

complaint drafted by them. She has further stated that,

after lodging the complaint when the matter was pending

before the Court, they married and their marriage was

registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kunigal Taluk

and presently they are residing together and there is no

dispute or misunderstanding between them. A copy of the

marriage certificate is also produced along with this
5

petition. The original Certificate of Registration of Marriage

is also made available for perusal of this court. As could be

seen from the certificate, the marriage of the petitioner and

the 2nd respondent was solemnized on 25.03.2013 and the

same was registered on that day in the office of the

Marriage Officer, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District.

4) Both the petitioner and the 2nd respondents

are present in person before this Court. The 2nd

respondent submitted that she has been residing with the

petitioner and that they have been residing as husband and

wife for the last four months and there has been no dispute

or misunderstanding between them since the date of

marriage.

5) As noticed supra, according to Respondent

No.2, on account of the petitioner’s refusal to marry her

immediately, she requested the police to advise the

petitioner properly to marry her immediately. Having

regard to the subsequent development and in view of the

fact that the petitioner has married the 2nd respondent and
6

since they have been living happily as husband and wife,

no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution

against the petitioner. The continuance of the prosecution

would be waste of precious public time of the court and

would also cause embarrassment to the parties, which

may also strain the marital relationship. The trial of the

case, for completion of the ritual, is not required to be

completed. In this view of the matter, the prosecution

launched against the petitioner is required to be quashed in

exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

6) In the result, the petition is allowed. The

prosecution launched against the petitioner in C.C.

No.3132/2013 on the file of the V-Additional C.M.M.,

Bangalore, is hereby quashed.

SD/-

JUDGE

KGR*

Kallappa S/O Lachappa Mannur Ors vs The Deputy Commissioner Ors on 30 May, 2012

Karnataka High Court
Kallappa S/O Lachappa Mannur Ors vs The Deputy Commissioner Ors on 30 May, 2012
Author: B.Manohar
r




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
                DATEI) THIS THE 30:tt DAY OF MAY. 2012
                                  BEFORE
                THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
                    V P No.80625/2011 (KLR-RR-SUR)

    BETWEEN:

    1.     Kallappa s/oLachappa Mannur.
           Age 60 years. Oce:Agricult Lire.

    2.     Basappa s/o.Kallappa Mannur,
           Age 30 years, Occ:Agrlculture.

    3.     Ningapa s/o.Kallappa Mannur.
           Age 20 years. Occ:Agrlcull ure.

    4.     Arun s/o.Kallappa Mannur,
           Age 20 years. Occ:Agriculture.

    5.     Smt. Shantavva. v/o. Na Liappa Mannur.
           Age 50 years. Occ:Household work.

    All are r/o.Kumatagi village,
    Taluk and I)istrici F3ijapu r.                  . .   Petit loners
    (By Sri P S PatH. Mv.)

    AND:

           The I)epwy Commissioner.
           I3ijapiir District. I3ijapur.
  2.    Revcnue inspector.
       BUapur District, Bijapur.

 3.    G urappa S/C). Lachappa Mum iur,
       Age 70 years. Occ:Agrictilture.
       RIo. Hi japu r.                          ...   Respondents
     This vii1 pet it ion is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India. praying to quash the impugned
order dated 4.10.20W in Revision Petition Nos.37. 38. 39 of
2008-2009 passed by the respondent. No.1 i.e. Deputy
Commissioner vide Annexure-C.

     This writ petition coming on for further orders this day,
the Court made the following:

                            ORDER

Inspite of pre-emptive order passed on 27.7.2011

granting ten days to comply with the office objections, the

same has not been complied with even today. Accordingly,
the writ pelition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

JUDGE

Bkm.

Smt Saraswathi Gopinath vs Smt Uma Ram on 16 April, 2012

Karnataka High Court
Smt Saraswathi Gopinath vs Smt Uma Ram on 16 April, 2012
Author: H.G.Ramesh
                                      CRP.No.282 OF 2011
                           --1-



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2012

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH

        Civil Revision Petition No.282 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

       SMT. SARASWATHI GOPINATH
       AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
       W/O LATE SRI B.R. GOPINATH

2.     SRI ROHITH
       AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
       S/O LATE SRI B.R. GOPINATH

3.     SMT. SUSHMA
       AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
       D/O LATE SRI B.R. GOPINATH

       ALL ARE PERMANENTLY RESIDING
       AT NO.27/2, 1ST MAIN ROAD
       JAYAMAHAL
       BANGALORE 560046
                  -
                                          .   .   .   PETITIONERS

       (BY SRI K.P. ASOKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

       SMT. UMA RAM
       AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
       D/O LATE SRI B.R. RAM
       R/AT NO.27/2
       1ST MAIN ROAD
       JAYAMAHAL
       BANGALORE 560 046
                  -




2.     SMT. RAJANI RAM
       AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
       D/O LATE SRI B.R. RAM
       R/AT NO.27/2
                                      CRP.No.282 OF 2011
                          -2-




      iSTMAIN ROAD
      JAYAMAHAL
      BANGALORE 560 046
                 -




3.    MRS. VEENA KUPPALI
      AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
      W/O SRI HEMACHANDRA
      R/AT NO.3785
      GROVE AVENUE PALO
      CA 94303, USA

4.   SMT. PRABHA
     AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
     W/O SRI L. VISHWANATHAN
     R/AT 1ST BLOCK
     JAYANAGAR
     BANGALORE 560 011

5.   SRI S.T. SUBBU
     AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
     S/O LATE THAMMAIAH
     R/AT BULL TEMPLE ROAD
     BANGALORE-560018
                                      ..   .RESPONDENTS

     (SRI N.G. SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR
                                      Ri TO R5)

   CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC. 115
                               OF CPC AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 22.9.2011 PASSED
                             ON ISSUE NO.11 IN O.S.
NO.6732/06 ON THE FILE OF THE
                               XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
JUDGE, BANGALORE, NEGATIVELY
                                HOLDING THE ISSUE
NO.11.


    CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
                                 THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                        CRRNo.282 OF 201 1
                            -3-




                        ORDER

H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):

This revision petition by the
defendants is
directed against an interlocutor
y order dtd. 221d
September 2011 passed by the
trial Court, namely,
the Court of the XXII Addi.

City Civil Judge,
Bangalore, in the suit in O.S. No.6732/200

6. By
the impugned order, the trial
Court has held Issue
No.11 in the negative by holdin
g that the suit was
not barred by limitation.

2. I have heard the learned counse
l appearing for
the parties and perused the impug
ned order.

3. Sri K.P. Asokumar, learned cou
nsel appearing
for the petitioners/defendants
submitted that the
trial Court having indicated tha
t Article 113 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 (‘the Act
‘ for short) would apply
to the present suit for partiti
on, has not recorded
CRP.No.282 OF 2011

any finding as to when the right
to sue accrued to
the plaintiffs and whether from tha
t date the suit
was filed within three years. However, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents / plaintiffs
supported the impugned order.

4. It is relevant to refer to the follow
ing reasoning
of the trial Court at para 20 of
the impugned order
which reads as follows:

“20. It is un-imaginable to hold tha
t a suit
has no limitation under the
Indian
Limitation Act. Every suit sha
ll have a
limitation. The recurrence of cause of
action is dfJèrent from having lim
itation or
no limitation for launching of a
suit, by a
party. I am of the clear opinion
that a suit
Jör partition shall also have lim
itation and
there is no question of suit
for partition,
having no limitation. If the variou
s articles
of Limitation Act do not appiLl to a
suit for
partition, to the situations not
covered
under Articles 109 & 110 of the
said Act,
there is alwaiis residuarq Articl
e under

(
CRP.No.282 OF 2011

Article 113, which shall be applicable
,
admits no confusion. Articl
es. 108 & 109
comes into picture when a co

-parcener has
been dispossessed either by
the other co
parceners or by the purch
aser of a joint
Jthnily property. In the ab
sence of these
two circumstances, definite
ly, it is Article

113. which comes into pic
ture. To me, it
looks that this is the an
alogy that is
available in the citations rfe
rred to by the
defendants. In A.I.R 2004
SC 1206 at
para -22 it is held under
old Article. 120,
which is equivalent to
Article. 113 of
Limitation Act, 1963 that the
starting point
of limitation for a suit for pa
rtition is when
the right to sue accrues
i.e., when the
plaintiff has noticed of his
entitlement to
partition, being denied. It
stress the word
denied’ used in the said
citation

(Underlining supplied)

It is also relevant to refer
to para 25 of the
impugned order:

CRP.No.282 OF 2011
-6-

“25. Under the above circu
mstances. I am
of the clear opinion that the
suit is well
within time and the plaintiff
s got the right
to sue only on the deat
h of Ram on
30.9.2001 and oniy when the
ir demand jôr
partition was specifically
denied by the
defendants, either implied
ly or expressly.
A reading of the plaint an
d plaint alone
would not indicate any such
situation

5. In my opinion, the trial Co
urt having observed
that Article 113 of the Act wo
uld apply, ought to have
determined the date on
which the right to sue
accrued to the plaintiffs an
d from that date, whether
the suit was filed within the
period of limitation. The
impugned order also lacks
clarity in its reasoning.

The matter requires to be
reconsidered by the trial
Court as it has failed to
determine the date of
commencement of the
period of limitation.
Accordingly, I make the follow
ing order:

CRP.No.282 OF 2011
-7-

(I) the impugned order is set
aside; the
matter is remitted to the
trial Court
for reconsideration In
accordance
with law. AU contentions
of both the
parties are kept open.
(il) this order shall not be co
nstrued as
expressing any opinio
n on the
merits of the matter.

The Revision Petition Is
allowed In the above
tenns.

In view of disposal of th
e Revision Petition, l.A.
No.1/2011 filed for interim
stay does not survive for
consideration and It stand
s disposed of accordingly.
etwsn allowed.

BNS

Kasturi Bai W/O Maleppa Danyal vs Bhimanna Nagappa Jatti S/O … on 23 November, 2011

Karnataka High Court
Kasturi Bai W/O Maleppa Danyal vs Bhimanna Nagappa Jatti S/O … on 23 November, 2011
Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar


{J

E} E I3 3». E :’\.f””i TR. E”; I {T} I

§{A?i=”I;’7R§,;XE §..=”aE

‘W’/(“J I”§§”§I§\2’T£§E3I-332% “:”;§I-€.§’\E,=-“s§.,.
A( ‘xii: “1′”§3Zz’-‘~x§?LE°:3

E32 KC? ‘?}’3;=.§ E 3’; ER { E3}

T5’xIX{ Eii Eif«..3,i\?”‘§.?F’?»4$§f?§{3 E {I} I

xiv»!

@. MAޣDEVI
XVfi3$M
;x<;;:: 33[: \fEi Iiifi
DCC:HO$b€RUL§E¥QRK-
:@T)8ih%flB{586HM

(E3? SE21 {'3 E7' é':.7'v'Il.§E?§I{.;"a.§3'€.

.f”iN§_}

L §%nMA_: _, A .

Janna, ;H$g%a,,\
AaB;&5¥ags ‘ T’

E-<'i;'°{'} .§I.§;; . LU

@ax@§s.:

BMA?LR58$MW _

3 gaxmgyvx
2:.v£nL

‘ *Lua gz{E:£: i£j%&§(§§€

“}{T{f’: E”§{ 3? §f*§E”=TE’ ‘I{}§,I.} ‘1.’»:’€.;’-§?.I”~I

‘¥AKANTEfiKAKUA&I

« “jLa£%%LAMna

Z.

4….

ficyordnlgfia $1? ezppcni %$ di$nnaac& as net

presfiefla

5551.’: