Sri J T Rajeev vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court

Author: H.Billappa

2

1 STATE or KARNATAKA
3? THE STATIGN HGUSE GFFICER,
HIRIYUR. POLICE STATTQN,
ct-II'I'RAwRI5A DISTRICT.
2 GAYATHRI
are KAMPLI NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT as YEARS, _
"GAYATHR1 NAYAK" *     .
THIRUVALLI sTaEET,2r~zo CRGSS. 
HULIYUR RQAE>,HIRIYUR.,   
CHITRADURGA aIs."I'a.IcT.«I *  I   
      RESPQNDENTS
(By Sri 5 BALAKRISHNA, HCGP ma. R._1.;"--._=_ 
sax 9 H \lIRUPAKS.HALAif£; ADV. ma R2)   

cRI..s>E'II11oI\;pIs §fFII.a£:« "U/S._.. 432 "c:R.P.c BY THE
ADVQCATE FOR_..""'S'H"E"=..PET1'TI"G?%I§R."PRAYING THAT THIS
HQNVELE C909:-Im.§v BE  P:.EAsEI)§'r0 SET ASIDE THE
ORDER :' DATEBf'. 13.6.2091 PASSED IN THE CASE
E>IREC?Ii*ei_G ._REGi'STRﬁ*.T'1£m-v..._G--F.' A CASE AGAIIIST THE
F'E'§'ITIONERS. FOR'«.G.FFEbR.-':ES- P/U/S. 143, 147, 149,
4939.) ANI1506 G? 'ma II>c AND W5. 3 AND 4 or THE
9.? ACT A¥'€D"~.ORDERIN.G"~?ROCESS AGAINST THEM FOR
'¥'HEIR§A'P?}EARA'N.CE IN THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT

._j""AND V-'...1FUP:fHER BE'-9%..EASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
p'PR3{;EE£}'iﬁ¢.(3S'«THAT ARE aezm; aacoanen IN THE CASE.

Thié »ééAtitic$rI.V'V'¥.:c:é?i1I2":q on for 'dictating orders' this day, the

H V' _ court"'mad;'é'i:-he foiiowing

Q.ﬁ_D_E_E

  petitien is ﬂéed by petitian-ers 1 ta 3 under

 '..'_4:"3&c§tion 482, Cr.P.C. seeking ta set aside the Gfdel' dated

  5.5.6.2061 passed in C.C.271/91 passed by the Civii Judge

//.r'''

J//';''. V



3
{Junior Divn.) & JMFC, Hiriyur, registering the above case.

aaainst the patitianers fer the efferrces punishable under

sectsans 243, 14?, 149, 498-A and sea, I.?.C. reaz1 j»~g§tn_

sectiens 3 and 4 of the ibowry Prahibltion Act a1i¢:!:'_:i:'6"¢3'*'i %L:s§i?:i.~. 

the entire praceedinas therein. ;  .'

2. The case cf the petlticners iii' a ﬁuésfagiivvtiie 

betitianer no.1 whc is mane qther a t.i3éi1V the f:§ssgﬁand :bf. V

resbondent $162.2 herein, ﬂied a--..;,:{g'"::5tlanV.bm:f:c&*as
Cam: at Baneaiare, inV:'M_.C. .22?8n!Q§"'LAQnde'f'éiacﬂen 13

(1)63) a*fi':;1arriébc':e i3;r;t'£e.<2"i<inc3 dissceiutiarr of his
marrfaaéwmﬁ  'by way of divorce. On

being notiﬁVéc!_ of ﬁ!i.n§A._VdfA.:_§uch case, the 2"' respomglant

..v..;_fesisf:é;3;  V§et iytitm..._an*£3 ﬂied cazmter statement. when

A"2§hé'r'natiasf're;a;i§i:ed triai, the parties exammad themselves

  The 15* petitioner-husband

 'got   documents, white the 2"" resgondent-wife

  ~J'«T5§d' Era; pfoduce any documentary evidence. During the

 '  tress-examinatian, she admitted that she was

T  formed after wait by her husband and she was not

u A subjected to any crueitv or iﬁ-treatment. Considering the

 



4

era and documentary evédence avaiiabie on recarcé-;.._»the

Famiiy Caurt éismissed the petition on the arnurgﬁ

2"""' respondent-wife has filed a complain?of ..VVd§$§i::;$2_"[

harassment against the petitianers-;

3. Being aggrieved by the

:v:.c.127s/co, the 1″ petetiotijesfinereaiiam.:svt.s.;&V.%1a2?é/as k %

iaefere this caurt. Thais c’.A..c’.::&:*V’:£._.”L_ –‘{.r”i’e;.*-»i_.;e juéamerﬁ dated
27.9.2607′, found thail ﬂ’_£.& in errar in

haidina that the.{ £’!._e5.’i’l:§::€$i”1V{“:.:’*¥*’-_::§’:’.1iJ$:ffA}§i’§:.;3: ha§SVv’V’fai!ed to prova

acts of €iQa’i.¥iS§. ‘(the respondent-wife, and
that thVé. £a’tif._er !vf:aaé{ ﬂ.i:éd..4§iL’.Af§’i§’e.case against him for dawry

harassmeﬁtﬁnzy :i:’c+1_!§é5.ré§§’L’him. Therefore, the co-crdirzate

$er;;§:,VE__}1atjna” “ihez …. fact that the apneiiant before it

‘(%Vi£1’::b.a:<1.A§}~i;§§§'i:n_teered to depesit Rs.3,500/- :3.m. far his

r.1ﬁ$§?é€ar'vV.V:i a7:;§¥jiféVr tawards maintenance apart from

Rs.54.i3..ﬁ,"'§.'1.{.3Q}'s- debasit towards the rraarriaaa expenses of

..jjVt¥§é*-njinér daughter burr: amt of wediack ten the maple,

fegééféaci the finding of the trim mart and ailowed the

" " af:~peai. After disposal of the said M.F.A. in fa-'mar of the

1" petitiner-husband, the petitionars have preferred this

5
petiticm, seeking quashtrzg cf the preceedirsgs iﬁitﬁted

against them at the instance of resnendent

registered in C.C.2712’G_1 pendim an the fiie

(sunsar ﬁivra.) & JMFC. Hmyur, :f’t$i*”t«he_ arrangeme: A

sectsans :43, 14:7, 149 493-1; ana’«V5¢%§,°:.P;ctt’ aw te§sd¢eri.%%k

Sectiens 3 and 4 ef Dewry Pfehibitton ‘

4. The 15* responcsegt is téarned Govt.

Pieader. The 2″” respontiérit ;a;.=ﬁe’ar;ei§3’V:tti:rto7u_gh her counse!

and resisted *_- that the above-

petrtiaﬁ'”has.”§.:%ee1;{‘§ﬁ’ied’~.V3{srith’ é_h””i’ﬁtent%on to nretract the
praceet*i~!.f¥§$ heart. It is ccmtended that

being a(§VVer5.evedV:V-V._b?y:._” the order dated 27.9.2097 in

has breferred S.L.P. (awn)

_’?w§ri{21tA1’§{§;’Q’?ifwherein the Horfble Sunreme Court has

::i’:”eié2*’eciv ‘sAt”e;3f7i§f the order impugned before it, but the

iaetittienieafsttrave sutapresseﬁ these facts befere this court,

V’ ‘»e5fa;é”the1;efere, seeks dismissal ef this crimirsat petition.

‘ I have heard Sr! C.V.r~éaaesh, learned senior ceunseﬁ

apeearlna far the petiticmere, Sri B.Ba£akrishna, beamed

HCGP and Sr: P.H.V%m;::ai(shaiah, ieamed causisel

representing the 2″ respondent, at length.

6. Sri C.V.Naee§ﬁ mbmitted that fiiino of :he:”_jc§fﬁ §:E$’in::’ _

by the 2″” respandent before the j£¥I’»§AA.’»H’_l:A<4:'i§{)f3;_al'1

fiiirzq cf charge sheet are subseq4uenf't91"i*ssuanéé ﬁt :*io£m e"v%

to the 2"' respondent In M.c;":t§?a/no 'r:.:.Ve4:sA i::yV"2,jn§' 1"
aetitianer against her a;=§4c;..,A_the$?é"f_o'ré$;._ tif'ie'.sanié"Ais'VVbad in
iaw. In fact, the 1" petV§_';_i:3':A1_.Ve':*v"_?i:=§i?s harassment

and crueity in the««A:.ﬁ'and::§ cf –:§iis"«9§i%é;'re s§:Sc'ndent no.2 by

ur:deracia":"a"'".:§§§; éfEi§a~i "é.f'V"—:ér}é"st~V–o;ra the basis of faise
camaiairai-_Aﬁ'%§d' dowry harassment. He
submittedfﬁat theV'f%_rid5.1i(:«.:.%5f this court in M.F.A. 14?6/05

.-.53 bIg'f;ja3:.n~;;_iAV'::s:%_ th é"iria.i__.c;ou:t: the learned magistrate has

'~.nt3£. a:api%§'ﬁ~% hééfraind whiie carderina pracess against the

aefiﬁiﬁaefs this craurxd aisa, the arder impugned is

'.11_:':sus41t:a§ri"a§:i.7e" in 13%;. Hence, he prays for aliewina this

" Hwhiie arguing the case, 811 C.V.biaa%h relied on the

V. V ' -. A "~ f6II§wina éecisionss

1) W3 vz3AYA EANK 3.. Aazomea .v. STATE av THE
uxaousz. amroncsmem” omcea (me. 2000 ma
4773);

2) a.A.wausHcsmA:vs .».:. e.s.:. CORPC>RATI£}f~§.._(ILR
1993 KAR. 551): % ‘

3) M.SARAVANA poaseavx .v. A.R.CHAﬁBRAS§.§§£\§§_ _

a QTHERS (2038 AIR scw 3777); am

‘4) ALL CARES MOVERS (1) PVT. LTE}.~V8«.,.§3:’TH;=E’}§;S .~}V.’ «
DHANESH BADARMAL JAIN”‘&—JRNC-f:4TH_Eﬁ–..{;?907(?).

SUPREME 334).

8. It is cf relevance to extract fi*z§’reiev?:.iitAVV..si§:gi9ti€§}::its

the abmse said decisicns cite:uiVL’L’=:{bc2vVe. i-rs fiijst cited
judgment, this ciaurt hais”i:.eié.’_’és§.§iﬁﬂ§:§§’~._

‘Takiﬁg’_~mm%’izanc;~eV “czf _a’n.j affemte being a
judiciai am-.~%r% ..a’;:ip¥i;§ati::n cf mind,
magistrate%.é;:.;s!1:ta.kina cconizancet D2″ii’ICil3!’&S-
_ fifiit:g;;’A1.&«_;> cc-iumns in the ordar scaring off
…lr’:aJ”;s~p¥ica’bie sub-se.-ctions, net taking of
ca§j:3§2ar}::e:~ne jurisdicticm taken: ifiegaﬂy not
. to be’-L}~re:auiari2ed on areund hat <:haHenaed-
sa_§'tctivci~%1 order being profcrma ﬁiied up or
scared sff, not vaiid; errtire proceedings void
ai:~._.i"nEtio.'

V' -..tjf?:'e judgment cited at rm.(3) abeve, the Hermie.-

_,v§~;_{25re:’rze Ccurt held thus:

‘cr.P.c., secs.4a2, 468-crueity ta wife-

compiainant and accused had entered into

X’ /’ __,,.–/’
M-2,”.-» ” 1

reaista-rw agreement of divarce as per
custom-parties living separately since Iﬁ ;
years-compiairzt cf crueity fiied thereafter-.w.f’-…_
barred by limitation—harassmer:t was aim. ” ‘ ”

unbeiievabie-prcceedings initiated are abusiof *’

process at’ court–iiabie to be qu§shed~~
ccmsideratior: cf admittw ﬁacument “f:§’i’. V’ _ L.
exercising powers under S.482::not iiiegai.’

In the last judgment cited su,;:>_ra, i:ia.¢:”i:i¢r:’bTi§2:ei_iASupréreiié~.iv”‘~.,L

Ccsuﬁ heié thus:

‘Cr.P.C.–Sec.482-ciiimiriais’V prbrgaéinas 5-héuivd
mt be en<:ouraged,"wimn'–_it is ;fe–i.:nd tn_ be maﬁa
fide or citiierwise an abuﬁa' {if ?i?.i_1e.'ﬁi'<:t'_»::ess of
the r:aurt–s:.:.gerio;'.-"* rzmirts; _ 'wiziig AV "exercising
inherent {waver-sh:%ij§.i_4*€.iS_V.ar:–s:i 420, the order
tze£<i;f:_gH ceghéégnca against. the ihppeiiant cannet
bmsusitaéniaci.' "F;

9. £3:1″‘*i:;ii’t’:.V iearned Gevt. Pieader

…,.ie&re$f§=;iitii:g thé”Si:ai_1f,§:submitted that the triai cauﬁ: is

ii%§:Aiiii;ati§fi1c3. praceeﬁingé against the petitioners an the

bi7asiA§-.,cf” :1’§i:Le’~.;;’éémaiaint cf iii-treatment and dowry

V «Vharaéiézneéiiz Elieged against them by 2″‘ respondent;

4i”.,”‘—¢.;,}:,e*;*e;~:!.3af Bécause the husband-petitieﬁer nczr.1 has initiateﬁ

.’_j_div:aai*cé Dfﬁﬁéédiﬁﬁﬁ against the cemaiainarst-wife

T ‘*’ff{‘ré§aendent na.2), it ices rant mean that cruei treatment

was not mated to her; stray ad-missions by the 2″”

resrmndent during the course cf her Cl’GSS*&X3ﬁ15ﬁ3tiCi__f_’i in

M.C.1.?.?8iGﬁ is net fatal to her case. Therefere, iie’=p:ifef§sV

for éismissai ef this rietiticm.

10. Sri Viruipakshaiah, ieameéI-icouneei–‘_’e’e§eerf§i’i§v’.’_fer”,

resporieent ne.2 submitted that

15* petitioner and 2″‘ responden.t””iaVnotVdeniegitv-.inii§iétiesi of ” it

preceedings by 2″” resptzmzdente.ageiLnsii–~ti}e ;§étiti.9n.ers is an
indepeneerit action aiieﬁihgt and the famiiy

court has righti3{::”d.ism§_3§e{d’tﬁetitienritied by the 15*

petitiei3et”iin’i§fé’-it iS£é;ctio’i*i’.V»é1.3(i)'(*iew}v”ef the Hindu Marriage
Act seeitine rieﬁibgjaitted ﬁiina of this eetition is

cirziv ta draRd–..e%nvvttie-__ef:}€:eeﬁines befere the triai court, and

-“‘~._Vdee:§_iteEtheg”e eeing…..s’tay cf the erder passed by the

i}i«Sii’SieAitv..,4:Bei”i4i:ii’..cif this ceiiri: in M.i=.A.1476/es, by the

Hc.:i*biev.vSi§–§:3«§”e-iite Court in S.L.P. ?~io.21190/O7, the 15”

‘. if)Efifui”€53.’ié’i’.:. ties suppressed the same befere this ceurt.

‘Heme, seeks dismissai at’ this criminai tzetiticm.

Sri Virupakshaiah substantiated his araumerits with

the tieie ef citatierss which are as under:

xi? .,
J; E _3..’.’..:«’///’K’f
~

1) MGHAMMED SAMDANI BASHA .31. SYED

xssxxc BASHA & ANOTHER um zoos KAR

1409);

‘Cr.P.C.-Sec.-482-quashina sf ;:yrac»egi::’~;:2i’a_s-*’A ” V
exercise of power under–proceedin”gs ‘:ini’ﬁatec§_” A V
under Sec.138 cf Neaetiabie Instruments Act—‘.’. , ‘ ‘
HELD:-The High Court under Sf&c._482;” Cr.P_.Cv.,
carmet minuteiy examifxe ail the” docufv:e:i’ts-I

“that is produced by both sides…a_z’1c.i. a«…detaiI7ed.._A

anaiysis 15 mt required-A. ta? be j”.€3§sr;é~–..whiie
exercising the answers tinder ‘~$ei.t.}482,’:’ §:r.9.c.
Once it is shown that the ¢:amp.!fair?:t ftiec3~.ji£__tisot
vexatious and 4!_’.1?iz2__ aiM§§ti:.ins’Arf2§de’. in the
ccmaiaint disc£”es&,r:¢:r:’:t’§*:is;si«:’:i”: éf *a*–.”ct;:g.tf£lza:bie
offence the, :;::m4rt’1…w_¢u’Ed: .b!.-2, siﬁwf in quashing
the Drocee6£i?ﬁ$_.”_.V

2) EQEAL. SIHGH MARWA-H’…~& ANOTHER .v.

MEEMAKSHIV M.A.R’&’9IAH ANOTHER [(2005)
4S.C_tC 3?G1;

‘E.s;:ideLr:.ce Act, 13?;§-Sec.3~appres:iatian of
evsidemcevcivii a:*.::~ criminai pmaeedings-

‘=standard. ¥.sf proof required in–distinctior:-

‘ Vfiﬁdiréas’ -ﬁ§fs;(&”r; in we praceedina-binding

._ izatufebf, ixﬂfhe other-Heid, civi! cases are

‘:ie’cided;”é§:~T”the basis af zareponderanca af
ei.:idencev whiia in a criminai cast the entire
ﬁuréers. ties cm the prasecutian and nraof

~ .i’.=__ey¢r¥d raasonabie cieubt has to be given-
.Vﬁtr;iin§s retarded in mm nmceedina may
mat be treated as ﬁner! or binding in the

éthar, as both the cases have to be decided
” on the basis of the evidence adduced

therein.’

3) M.S.3i-EERIFF & ANOTHER N’. STATE OF
MADRAS & QTHERS (AIR 1954 SC 39?)

‘Cr.P.C.~Sets.439, 561A-stay of
preceedings.

As between the civsi and criminal. ”

praceedinas, the criminaé matters shouidW£i&;'”-: j’=: ~..
given precedence. No hard and fast_.:’_rt:’i’e..’_’v—…,
can be iaid dawn but the tzossibility’ ,-3f,” ‘

conflicting decisions in civil and_–~criv«rr§jin§”i~..V –
comts is not a reievant cc:r£§§derati.an,’. _’T?’.9.€:

iaw envisages such an e#entuAa{A}iy’*whAeﬁ- 7

expressly refrains from makingtbe de:is~im:.

of one caurt an the c:’th__er or”~2furé:r’: raiévant,
except for certain iimi*:gc¥’~..g;:urpoae$,–..:;:;:f;:!’:’a:$
sentence at damages. tag arm» raievant
consideraticn js _.ti1e. iikglibcow.

embarrassment. ‘-Ancther .–~«..far:;-.::r.’.~ which
weighs _wét_h thé”co§m:”!sL..tha.t,3? civii suit
o§i:enci:F’;ag’s “gang fa-r”‘vya.-:a*r$.___,,.1and it’ is
and-=;.*=irai§§xev.*;’. t£”za’li_ ‘E3 :.’;r§:’fT’:’:ina.l prdsetutiem
shcis,t£d.; wait ‘*-til!’ ‘”aj’eer,tbad*g “concerned has
vfurqéttée1′<.;a__ilV i:.bC+%.ji' t§m_V;r.é?me. The aubiic
interests éféemsnd that criminai justice
*._sh::ru%d "'.:-es'-._s's*sI,;ifi~_av2*;a' sure that the auiity
'should be"p:_;:~nish_1§cE.xeshi!e the events are stﬂ!
fr'es;_h* in"'th'e! =pi.Ii"';.'1HC mind and that the
§nnei':2gnt.s§1ou2d 'izie absolved as early as is
mﬁsisteat with a fair and impartial triai.'

;'V""§éav§§"–¢arefuily acme thraueh the mutants ef the

éem pi,iih't:'""_~v_$gi5;§1iftad by the 2"" respondent to the

_ juriéﬁictiﬁriai'ikaciice. Based an it, a case came ta be

' .Vife3fst_eréﬁ.. in Crime No.5/£31 against the petitioners which

'ii-:». r":ov§ bending in C.C.2'71/01 an the file of Civii liudee

VT '(3{mior aim) 8: JMFC, Hiriyur. Initialfy they appeared

V " befcre triai mart but subsequently remained absent. Now,

.- _'E.. .p'' r,.,.

…… ‘”

I :L..,–»-“” K
\

they are befare this ceurt seekina ta quash the entire

proceedinas in C.C.2?1:’i31. on 15.6.2001, charae’~sf::éé%vv’

was ﬂied aqaiﬁst the petiticmers far

aaurzishabie under Sections 143, 147, ..49&~A,_–‘S{36 %$a£i”\A§§Ai;h ‘ ‘ V

Section’: 149, I.P.C. and Sectionﬁ-:’A3:;’_”a:é d

Prohibition Act.

13. The averments’ ~.._rna:i”é ” mthé ‘c5cifn;§1vainant-
responéent r:a.2 in her cahi;:Si§ié1’t”i5:*ima§ fég;i:ég”discIos% that

ﬁetitioners havg«:s§rr:mii:fec§»’the-éfdifﬁéiéé’ Véffencas. The

petitleners.–«Vcaif:’t:$t: r§;sct”t .’t§V’théﬂnaiinas retarded by the
Givisiaﬁ F>1ar%t:h 9%,,m.~,:;.e _’M’.F.A.1476iCr5 and seek for

their disch§ra;Vé.Vexf’ ._#u’as%é§ no cf the entire nrcceedinas

jnitiatéﬁu§iiainst’ t’ﬁenj_,___A’Of course the saw M.F.A. has been

by ..>§§§:titiA{:+ner no.1 herein chaitenaina the order sf

d1§’sn?iiﬁai éf:.. i§i’5 petitien M.C.12?8/60 filed against

V –res:a$%idxeié§;.i1éf.2 herein under sectian 13 (1)(ia) of the

Mérﬁaee Act seeking far divorce. The said

.’.’J4′;3f¢§: e’éfd’inas béiflﬁ civii in nature, any ﬂndina recorded

T * .. t§’i’é?eir: may net be binding an the crimiraa! court, which

xshouid dispcrse $3′ the case an the basis of evidence

‘)//>/1’Iﬂ/
<C',% :-

13
adduced befere it. The proceedings initiated against the

petitioneze beirza crirninai in nature, it is ferV_.._i;he

eresecutier: to praise its case. While taking coani2ahee«.ef.A’

an effence, the crimirxai «:4:-are Shﬁiiid satisfy

whether the comiaiairiantigsroeecutieri-..has’_”.VE:§ati?é,~” e’u.£g_a”v_

prima facie triabie case aeainst th;é.Va£9§:u§ed”aviici_it.u

net scrutinize each arse ever’?§’w;umer:t:__eregiiiijéeﬁeeffxre
it, eepeciaiiv decumente ‘hy_ iﬁeaacciised in
subvert ef their defer’-icef–A ﬁe_rff. }3tu”:’e.a:i:’eziaii won the
prosecution ta pfeyfe i;’Eidsra::1:ivee:ivi1’ge.iit5::Before it takes
caanizaii~c*:e’iefitéielSifieneetﬂ’Ti”;efefe’i9e, in the instant case,
the :euV§*t_’beieveV:vai%ei’V itseif from the matwiais

ela:ed_hefar’aVii;v ti§atA’ifiie2f’¥a is a triabie case against the

-“v~._1aatii:’i_t.ié1eifT$’,__tooi€”‘cegei2ance cf the same and issued

V.’..suiﬁi’neris’:’tev’«vi§ii’e_ petitioners which carmei: be said to be

iiiéqhaierv ‘ixi~7eei€?act and there is me abuse ef arecass ef

?s;.eui’t41’e.rV'”‘iav§.x Mereiy because rapendent no.2 rm the

eiisziifziiﬁiainii against the netitieners aﬁer initiatien of éivorce

’57ca;ae’ ‘by aetiticmer 1219.1 against her, is net a around ta

. V u iiiieubt the case ef the presecutien. Therefore, viewed frem

24
any mate, I do not find any aceci araufzds ta quash the
prczceaﬁings initiated aaainst the petitioners. He::.¢e:;..:’_i§%:is
petitien faiis and is Iiabie ta be dismissed. ” A’

3.4. Accardirnaiv, this aetition isf’di’s’r:*;is_si;w df:

merits. _ _%

vah* W”

Like this:

Related

Leave a Comment Cancel

Sri J T Rajeev vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Leave a Comment Cancel