- 1 - CRL.P No.101212 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101212 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. BASAVARAJ S/O. GOLLALAPPA M., AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED WORKER, R/O. NANDI NILAYA KUMBAR ONI, SHAHAPUR, TQ. SHAHAPUR, YADAGIR-585223. 2. MALLIKARJUN S/O. BASAVARAJ M., AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. MECHANICAL ENGINEER, R/O. NANDI NILAYA, KUMBAR ONI, SHAHAPUR, TQ. SHAHAPUR, YADAGIR-585223. 3. RAJESHWARI W/O. JAYAPRAKASHA HURAKADLI, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. NANDI NILAYA, KUMBAR ONI, SHAHAPUR, TQ. SHAHAPUR, YADAGIR-585223. 4. KANNAYAKUMARI W/O. BASAVARAJ M., AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. NANDI NILAYA, KUMBAR ONI, SHAHAPUR, TQ. SHAHAPUR, YADAGIR-585223. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. RAJESHWARI B.MANNUR, PARTY IN PERSON) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH KARATAGI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA , DHARWAD-580001. - 2 - CRL.P No.101212 of 2024 2. JAYAPRAKASH S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA HURAKADLI, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. S.B.I. BANK EMPLOYEE, R/O. 1ST WARD, NEAR SANGMESHWAR TEMPLE, KARATAGI TQ. KARATAGI, DIST. KOPPAL-585283. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRAVEEN Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI S.P. KANDAGAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.810/2023 PENDING THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C COURT, GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 504 AND 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, AND AGAINST THE PETITIONER’S/ACCUSED NOS 1, 2, 3 AND 4. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 25.10.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI) Petitioners, who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 4 have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.810/2023 on the file of Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Gangavathi, Koppal District for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. - 3 - CRL.P No.101212 of 2024 2. In support of the petition, the petitioners have contended that there is enormous delay of 4 days in filing the complaint. It is a counter blast to the complaint filed by petitionerNo.3. No specific allegations are made against the petitioners. There are omnibus allegations. Interested persons are cited as witnesses. While the wound certificate is dated 29.10.2023, the incident took place on 28.11.2023. The wound certificate is not consistent with the alleged injury sustained by the complainant. These documents are concocted for the purpose of this case and pray to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 3. Learned HCGP submitted oral objections stating that complainant is the husband of petitioner No.3 - Rajeshwari. She and petitioner No.2 are the children of petitioner No.1 Basavaraj and petitioner No.4 - Kanyakumari. The marriage of complainant and petitioner No.3 took place about one year prior to the filing of complaint. After two months, petitioner No.3 started quarrelling with the mother of complainant. She insisted to set up a house at Dharwad. To avoid further trouble, - 4 - CRL.P No.101212 of 2024 complainant's mother also advised him to go separate. Accordingly he set up a rented premises at Dharwad. He was working in Innova company. Petitioner No.3 Rajeshwari was practising as an advocate at Dharwad. 3.1 During Jathra festival, complainant and Rajeshwari went to his native place. However, unnecessarily petitioner No.3 Rajeshwari picked up quarrel with him and left the matrimonial home. On several occasions, he requested petitioner No.3 to join him. However, listening to the words of other petitioners, she stayed in her parents’ house. On 28.11.2022 at 10-00 a.m, all the petitioners went to the house of complainant. Petitioner No.3 abused him in filthy language and assaulted him on his back, saying that she will not live with him. Her parents assaulted with the club on his left hand. Petitioner No.2 Mallikarjun abused him in filthy language and assaulted on his elbow, back and head. Petitioner No.3 Rajeshwari and petitioner No.4 Kanyakumari pushed him around, holding his shirt and all the petitioners gave threat to the complainant. On the - 5 - CRL.P No.101212 of 2024 next day, complainant went to the hospital and took treatment. Accordingly, he has filed the complaint. 3.2 Based on the complaint, case was registered and the investigation was taken up. The complainant has taken treatment at Community Health Centre, Karatagi. The statement of the witnesses are recorded. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed. It makes out a strong prima facie case against the petitioners. In the light of the material placed on record, the petition is liable to be rejected and prayed to reject the same. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel representing accused submitted that petitioner No.3 filed a criminal complaint, miscellaneous petition, seeking maintenance, separate miscellaneous petitions for recovery and also a private complaint against respondent No.2 and others and as a counterblast a complaint is filed by him. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the alleged incident took place on - 6 - CRL.P No.101212 of 2024 28.11.2022, whereas in the certificate, it is stated that the respondent No.2 is injured in an assault dated 29.10.2022 at 6:50 p.m. This itself goes to show that a false complaint is filed and it is a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, learned HCGP and learned counsel representing respondent No.2 submitted that sometime after the marriage, petitioner No.3 forced the complainant to set up a separate residence at Dharwad. Despite the same, she was not happy and ultimately she left the matrimonial home and since then filed various complaints and petitions against the respondent No.2. The incident in question had taken place on 28.11.2022 at 10.00 a.m. However, respondent No.2 had gone to the hospital on the next day and filed the complaint on 01.12.2022. There is delay in filing the complaint. It is for the prosecution to explain the delay and also the discrepancy in the wound certificate. However, it is not a ground to quash the criminal proceedings, especially in the light of the fact that the complainant has sustained injuries - 7 - CRL.P No.101212 of 2024 and there are eye witnesses to the incident. The matrimonial dispute between the parties supports the case of the prosecution and prove motive for the incident. Without providing opportunity to the prosecution, the proceedings cannot be quashed and pray to dismiss the petition. 6. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the record. 7. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children of petitioner Nos.1 and 4. The marriage between petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2 took place about one year prior to the complaint. From the material placed on record. While petitioner No.3 stated to be a practising advocate, respondent No.2 is working in Innova company. It is alleged that though respondent No.2 set up a separate residence at Dharwad, petitioner No.3 was not happy and ultimately she left the matrimonial home. As per the complaint averments, on 28.11.2022, all the petitioners together went to the house of respondent No.2 and abused - 8 - CRL.P No.101212 of 2024 and assaulted him with hands and club. In the complaint, the complainant/ respondent No.2 has not stated that the incident was witnessed by his neighbours. In his further statement dated 02.12.2022, he has stated that his neighbours Ananth Kumar, Ambanna, Nataraj and Thimanna were witnesses to the incident and sent him to the hospital and due to pain and shock he did not reveal the said fact in the complaint. 8. The investigating officer has recorded the statements of Anant Kumar, Ambanna, Nataraj and Thimanna. In their statements they have categorical stated about the incident and that they intervened and rescued respondent No.2. In the injury certificate, it is stated that respondent No.2 was injured in an assault dated 29.10.2022 and that he was treated on the said date i.e, on 29.10.2022, which appears to be an error due to the fact that respondent No.2 went to the hospital on 29.10.2022 for treatment. This is required to be clarified by the Medical Officer at the time of his evidence. - 9 - CRL.P No.101212 of 2024 However, in the statements of the witnesses, the date of incident is categorical stated as 28.11.2022. 9. At the trial, while the prosecution gets an opportunity to clarify the said aspect, the petitioners defence would get an opportunity to explain and clarify the discrepancy. Without providing the opportunity to the prosecution, on the basis of the entry in the wound certificate, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out. It is true that the relationship between the parties is spoiled and several petitions are pending against respondent No.2 and petitioner No.3. The same would prove the motive for the petitioners to assault respondent No.2. At this stage, there is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioners. Petitioners have not made out any justifiable grounds to quash the criminal proceedings against them and accordingly the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed. - 10 - CRL.P No.101212 of 2024 (ii) Send this copy of order to the trial Court forthwith. SD/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR CT: UMD