0

Appeal Against Orders: Disposal and Conversion in High Court, Karnataka

Blog, High Court of Karnataka , , ,

Case Name: MR. RANGASWAMY vs. MR. RAMESH and SMT. PRATHIBA

Case Number: Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 2826 of 2024 (AA).

Dated On: May 2, 2024.

Quorum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B M Shyam Prasad and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Mr. Rangaswamy, represented by his advocate Mr. Harsha D Joshi, initiated legal proceedings against Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba, represented by their advocate Mr. Yogesh V. Kote. The dispute appears to revolve around certain orders passed in AA.No.76/2023 by the 17 Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru CCH-16, on March 4, 2024. Mr. Rangaswamy lodged an appeal challenging the specific orders issued on IA.Nos. 1 and 2 in AA.No.76/2023. The first order, dismissed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 along with Section 151 of CPC, appears to have been unfavourable to Mr. Rangaswamy’s interests. Conversely, the second order, allowed under Order 39 Rule 4 along with Section 151 of CPC, might have favoured the respondents, Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba. Prior to filing this appeal, Mr. Rangaswamy lodged a writ petition, W.P.No.9500/2024 [GM-CPC], challenging the same order. The High Court disposed of this writ petition on April 2, 2024, granting Mr. Rangaswamy permission to convert it into a Miscellaneous First Appeal, now identified as M.F.A.No.2817/2024. This conversion suggests that the issues raised in the writ petition were to be addressed through the appeal process. Upon considering the circumstances and the previous conversion of the writ petition into M.F.A.No.2817/2024, the High Court determined that the current appeal, MFA No. 2826 of 2024, lacked basis for maintenance. As a result, the High Court disposed of this appeal, reserving the liberty for Mr. Rangaswamy to pursue the appeal in M.F.A.No.2817/2024.

ISSUES

  • Were the orders on IA.Nos. 1 and 2 in AA.No.76/2023 legally sound?
  • Conversion of Writ Petition: What are the implications of converting the original writ petition into M.F.A.No.2817/2024?
  • Maintainability of Current Appeal: Is MFA No. 2826 of 2024 justified given the conversion and disposal of the writ petition by the High Court?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):

  • Section 151: Deals with the inherent powers of the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
  • Order 39 Rule 1 and 2: Pertains to temporary injunctions, which may be granted to restrain the defendant from committing acts that would cause injury to the plaintiff.
  • Order 39 Rule 4: Concerns the court’s power to grant temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Mr. Rangaswamy, through his advocate Mr. Harsha D Joshi, contested the orders issued on IA.Nos. 1 and 2 in AA.No.76/2023. He argued that the dismissal of IA.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 along with Section 151 of CPC was unjust and prejudicial to his case. Additionally, he disputed the allowance of IA.No.2 under Order 39 Rule 4 along with Section 151 of CPC, suggesting that it was not in accordance with the facts or the law. Mr. Rangaswamy aimed to overturn the adverse order (IA.No.1) and challenge the favourable order (IA.No.2) granted to the respondents, Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba. His contention was likely centred on demonstrating errors in the lower court’s decision-making process or misinterpretation of the law. It’s important to note that Mr. Rangaswamy initially pursued legal recourse through a writ petition, W.P.No.9500/2024 [GM-CPC]. However, this petition was converted into a Miscellaneous First Appeal, M.F.A.No.2817/2024, by the High Court. This conversion indicates Mr. Rangaswamy’s intention to challenge the same orders through a different legal avenue, suggesting his determination to seek redress for perceived injustices. In summary, Mr. Rangaswamy, as the appellant, contested the validity of the orders issued in AA.No.76/2023, aiming to reverse the unfavourable decision against him and challenge the favourable decision for the respondents. His contentions likely revolved around demonstrating errors or inconsistencies in the lower court’s rulings and seeking a fair resolution to the dispute.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondents likely argued that the orders issued on IA.Nos. 1 and 2 in AA.No.76/2023 were just and lawful. They might have contended that the dismissal of IA.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 along with Section 151 of CPC was warranted based on the facts and evidence presented in court. Similarly, they may have justified the allowance of IA.No.2 under Order 39 Rule 4 along with Section 151 of CPC, asserting that it was in accordance with the law and supported by the merits of the case. Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba likely disputed the appellant’s allegations of injustice or error in the lower court’s decisions. They might have presented counter arguments to refute the appellant’s contentions, attempting to demonstrate the correctness and validity of the orders challenged by the appellant. Given that one of the orders was in their favour, the respondents might have emphasised the importance of upholding the decision that favoured them (IA.No.2). They would likely have argued for the preservation of any advantage gained through the lower court’s rulings, asserting their right to the relief granted to them. In response to the appellant’s challenge, the respondents likely sought the dismissal of the appeal (MFA No. 2826 of 2024) on grounds such as lack of merit or procedural irregularities. They may have urged the court to uphold the orders issued in their favour by the lower court and reject the appellant’s attempts to overturn them. In summary, the respondents, Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba, likely defended the validity of the lower court’s orders, opposed the appellant’s claims of injustice, emphasised the importance of preserving any advantage gained through the rulings, and requested the dismissal of the appellant’s appeal.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court’s analysis and judgement appear to be straightforward. The court noted that the appellant, Mr. Rangaswamy, had initially filed a writ petition challenging the same orders that he now seeks to appeal against. The High Court disposed of this writ petition by permitting its conversion into a Miscellaneous First Appeal, which was numbered as M.F.A.No.2817/2024.

The court recognized that this conversion indicated Mr. Rangaswamy’s intent to pursue his grievances through the appellate process rather than through a writ petition. As a result, the court found that the current appeal, MFA No. 2826 of 2024, cannot be maintained. It held that since Mr. Rangaswamy had already addressed the issues through M.F.A.No.2817/2024, the present appeal lacked a basis for continuation.

In light of this analysis, the court disposed of the current appeal, MFA No. 2826 of 2024, with liberty reserved for Mr. Rangaswamy to prosecute the appeal in M.F.A.No.2817/2024. This disposition indicates that the court recognized the procedural history of the case and deemed it appropriate for Mr. Rangaswamy to pursue his grievances through the converted Miscellaneous First Appeal.

In summary, the court’s analysis focused on the procedural aspects of the case, particularly the conversion of the writ petition into a Miscellaneous First Appeal, and its judgement reflected a pragmatic approach to the resolution of the appeal.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by- Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement

0

Judicial intervention: The High Court of Karnataka strikes down proclamation order in pujar bitcoin case  

Blog, High Court of Karnataka , , , , , , ,

Case title:   SHRIDHAR K PUJAR VS STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case no.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2380 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2916 OF 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2925 OF 2024

Dated on: 02th May 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Petitioner is a Police Officer of Dy.S. P rank. Allegations are leveled against him that he was involved in interfering with the true course of justice inasmuch as he had interfered with the investigation of Crime Nos.91/2020 and 287/2020 registered in the file of K.G. Nagara Police Station and Ashok Nagara Police Station respectively. In respect of those crimes when the investigation was under process, the petitioner said to have been found in the company of the Lawyer who represented the accused therein. He was required to accompany the Police personnel who had spotted him in the car. At that juncture, he escaped from the clutches and he is not available to the Police is the allegation. Based on the said incident, a case came to be registered against the petitioner in Crime No.19/2024 and Crime No.1/2024 and attempts were made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of Anticipatory Bail were rejected. It is also submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court also rejected the anticipatory bail request of the petitioner and thereafter he is not available to the Investigation Agency. In the meantime, the prosecution has filed an application seeking proclamation as against the petitioner. The material on record discloses that before issuing a Proclamation Order necessary procedural formalities are not carried out and therefore the very issuance of proclamation is questioned by the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.2925/2024. Fact remains that till today the petitioner is not available to the Investigation Agency. In Criminal Petition Nos. 2380/2024 and 2916/2024 the petitioner is seeking quashing of two criminal cases registered in Crime Nos.19/2024 and 1/2024.

 

ISSUES

  • Whether at all the allegations leveled against the petitioner is true or not cannot be decided by this Court at this stage, as the case against the petitioner is still in the inception stage?
  • Whether the issuance of a proclamation order was procedurally correct.
  • Whether the FIRs against the petitioner should be quashed.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 343: Punishment for wrongful confinement for three or more days.

Section 344: Punishment for wrongful confinement for ten or more days.

Section 409: Criminal breach of trust by a public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent.

Section 426: Punishment for mischief.

Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.

Section 204: Destruction of document or electronic record to prevent its production as evidence.

Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000

Section 66: Computer-related offenses, including hacking and unauthorized access.

Section 84C: Punishment for attempt to commit offenses.

Criminal procedure code 1973

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Section 482 of Cr.P.C.: Saving of inherent powers of High Court. The section grants inherent powers to the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Sri. Aruna Shyam learned Senior Counsel submits that in view of the directions issued by this Court in the above criminal petitions, he would not press the anticipatory bail application pending in Criminal Petition No.3062/2024.The petitioner challenged the procedural correctness of the proclamation order. He sought quashing of the FIRs registered in Crime Nos. 19/2024 and 1/2024.He expressed willingness to join and cooperate with the investigation.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The prosecution highlighted the petitioner’s non-cooperation and absconding behaviour. The prosecution requested the court to mandate the petitioner’s participation in the investigation.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT          

Having heard the parties and perused the material on record, it is crystal clear that the petitioner is not available to the Investigation Agency till now. The attempts made by the petitioner to submit himself for the process of law by seeking an order of grant of anticipatory bail is turned down by the learned District & Session Judge and a Coordinate Bench of this Court. It is a settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that every accused is presumed to be innocent unless the allegations leveled against him stands proved before the court of law beyond all reasonable doubts. However, the prima facie material would reveal that the petitioner said to be involved in helping the accused in crime No.91/2020. Fact remains that unless the petitioner joins the investigation and cooperates with pending investigation in respect of Crime No.19/2024 and crime No.1/2024 no useful purpose would be served by simply keeping the investigation pending. More so, the petitioner being the Police Officer by himself of Dy. SP rank. Under the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that he would be interested in joining the investigation and cooperate with the investigation to the fullest extent subject to the rights of the petitioner as enshrined under the provisions of Constitution, an arrangement needs to be made which would strike a harmonious balance between the rights of the petitioner and the need of the prosecution. Therefore, without expressing further opinion on the merits of the matter, without holding mini enquiry, if the petitions are disposed of by directing the petitioner to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigation process, would meet the ends of justice. Having said thus, it is settled principles of law that generally FIR cannot be quashed unless it has acted prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner and by the allegation found in the complaint, no case is made out against the accused/petitioner. In the case on hand, there is no special reason for this Court to quash the FIR itself. Criminal Petition No.2925/2024 is Allowed. Order of proclamation passed by the learned Trial Judge as against the petitioner stands quashed, on account of procedural irregularities. Petitioner is at liberty to appear before the Jurisdictional court and subject himself for investigation process. Criminal Petition Nos.2380/2024 and 2916/2024 are Disposed Of with the following conditions: Petitioner shall positively join the investigation on 08.05.2024 by appearing before the Investigating Officer at 9.00 a.m., Investigating Officer is at liberty to take the petitioner to the judicial custody and conclude the custodial investigation on the very same day before 6.00 p.m. Petitioner shall completely cooperate with the Investigation Agency. Prosecution shall not indulge in extra-judicial methods while investigating the matter. On conclusion of the custodial investigation, the petitioner shall be let free by taking a bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer. Further, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigation Officer as and when called and shall not in any way tamper the prosecution evidence.  In view of the fact that the petitioner has agreed to join the investigation, bail application if any to be filed by the petitioner shall not be opposed by the prosecution. However, disposal of the present petitions would not come in the way of the petitioner in challenging the final report, if it goes against him.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP

Click here to read the judgement

0

Karnataka HC Orders Immediate Restoration Of Electricity Supply In Malalwadi Property Dispute

Blog, High Court of Karnataka

Case Title: SHRI M R VIJAYA KUMAR Vs. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EI) & ORS.

Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 13571 OF 2024

Dated on: 21st MAY, 2024

Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

Facts:

The petitioner, Shri M R Vijaya Kumar, residing at Adichunchanagiri Road, Mysuru, filed a writ petition seeking the restoration of electricity supply to his premises at Malalwadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. The petitioner’s electricity supply was disconnected by the Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited (CESCOM) due to the petitioner’s failure to obtain a no-objection certificate (NOC) from other co-owners of the property. Despite the petitioner’s requests for restoration of power and assurance to furnish the necessary NOC, CESCOM did not consider the petitioner’s representations. The court, after hearing the arguments, directed CESCOM to restore the power supply immediately, with the condition that the petitioner must furnish the NOC from other co-owners within 15 days. Failure to comply would allow CESCOM to take further action.

Issues framed by Court:

  1. Whether the disconnection of power supply by CESCOM was justified solely due to the petitioner’s failure to obtain a no-objection certificate (NOC) from other co-owners of the property?
  2. Whether the petitioner’s requests for restoration of power supply and assurance to furnish the necessary NOC were duly considered by CESCOM?
  3. Whether CESCOM’s action of disconnecting the power supply without considering the petitioner’s representations was lawful?
  4. Whether CESCOM is obligated to restore the electricity supply to the petitioner’s premises bearing No. 32/1, Malalwadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, in light of the petitioner’s regular payment of consumption charges?

Legal Provision:

Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The power of HC’s to issue writs for the enforcement of rights under Part III of the Constitution and other purposes.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The petitioner contended that CESCOM unjustly disconnected the electricity supply to the petitioner’s premises solely due to the petitioner’s failure to obtain a no-objection certificate (NOC) from other co-owners of the property. The petitioner argued that despite their requests for restoration of power supply and assurance to furnish the necessary NOC, CESCOM did not consider their representations. However, the petitioner emphasized their regular payment of consumption charges as evidence of their compliance with CESCOM’s requirements. Consequently, the petitioner sought the immediate restoration of electricity supply to their premises, asserting CESCOM’s lack of lawful grounds for the disconnection.

Contentions of the Respondents:

The respondent contended that the disconnection of power supply was justified due to the petitioner’s failure to obtain a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the other co-owners of the property, as requested by CESCOM. They argued that CESCOM had communicated this requirement to the petitioner and had warned of necessary action in case of non-compliance. Despite the petitioner’s assurances to furnish the NOC, CESCOM asserted that the petitioner did not comply within the stipulated time frame. Hence, CESCOM maintained that their action of disconnecting the power supply was lawful and warranted given the circumstances.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The Court analyzed that the petitioner’s right to electricity is a basic amenity which was unduly hindered by CESCOM’s refusal to restore the supply despite the petitioner’s assurances and efforts to obtain the required NOC. Further, the Court emphasized the necessity of balancing procedural requirements with the provision of essential services. However, it concluded that CESCOM’s insistence on the NOC, without considering the petitioner’s representations and assurances, was unjust. Consequently, the Hon’ble Court directed the respondents to restore the electricity supply to the petitioner’s premises immediately, stipulating that the petitioner must provide the NOC from the co-owners within 15 days. It further stated that, if the petitioner fails to comply, CESCOM would be entitled to take appropriate action, thereby ensuring procedural compliance while safeguarding the petitioner’s access to electricity.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta

0

Karnataka HC rejected criminal petition due to violation of Bail COnditions and Unsupported Covid-19

Blog, High Court of Karnataka , , ,

Case Title: Sri kirana and Sri Vasantha vs. State of Karnataka

Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 4068 of 2024

Dated On : 16th May, 2024

Quorum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.P Sandesh

FACTS OF THE CASE

Sri Kirana, son of Devarju K. Gowda, aged about 20 years, and Sri Vasantha, son of Sri Vasantha, aged about 22 years, are the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 4068 of 2024 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. They reside in different locations within Bengaluru. The petitioners are seeking bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in connection with Crime No.216/2016 registered at Tavarekere Police Station, Magadi Circle, Ramanagara District. The charges against them include offences punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 307, 302 read with Section 149. The petitioners had previously been granted bail, but they violated the bail conditions by absconding. They were accused Nos.4 and 8 in the case, which dates back to 2016. Despite being granted bail, they evaded law enforcement from 2020 until they were apprehended in 2023 after Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued against them. The petitioners’ counsel argued that their absence was due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but there was no evidence presented to confirm whether they had contracted the virus or not. Additionally, it was questioned why they remained in hiding from 2020 to 2023, despite having been granted bail earlier. The court observed that the petitioners’ actions constituted a violation of the previous bail order and noted the significant passage of time since the incident occurred in 2016. Furthermore, it was highlighted that a separate case had been registered due to their absconding, adding complexity to the legal proceedings.

ISSUES

  1. Whether the petitioners, Sri Kirana and Sri Vasantha, violated the bail conditions by absconding, and if so, what consequences should follow.
  2. Whether the reasons provided by the petitioners’ counsel, citing the Covid-19 pandemic, are justified for their absence and evasion from the authorities.
  3. Whether, considering the elapsed time since the incident in 2016, the petitioners’ absconding, and the additional complexities introduced by the split-up case, it is appropriate to exercise discretion in favour of granting bail again.
  4. How to ensure the expeditious consideration of the case by the Trial Court, given the circumstances and the rejection of the bail petition by the High Court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
    • Section 143: Punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
    • Section 147: Punishment for rioting.
    • Section 148: Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.
    • Section 448: Punishment for house-trespass.
    • Section 427: Mischief causing damage to property.
    • Section 307: Attempt to murder.
    • Section 302: Punishment for murder.
    • Section 149: Every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of the common object.

2. Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): This section grants the High Court and the Court of Sessions the power to grant bail in certain cases.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Sri. Rajanna C, counsel of the appellant submitted that the petitioners’ failure to appear before the court was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was contended that the pandemic hindered their ability to comply with the legal proceedings. The appellant’s counsel raised a point regarding the absence of concrete evidence to support the claim that the petitioners were unable to appear in court due to Covid-19. It was suggested that there was no material presented to ascertain whether the petitioners had indeed contracted the virus. It was argued that a significant amount of time had passed since the incident occurred in 2016. The appellant’s counsel emphasised that almost eight years had elapsed, yet the case had not reached its finality.  The appellant’s counsel highlighted the fact that the petitioners had previously been granted bail but had violated the conditions of their bail by absconding. This was presented as a violation of the court’s previous order. The counsel pointed out that a separate case had been registered due to the petitioners’ absconding, further complicating the legal proceedings. This complexity was cited as a reason to deny bail to the petitioners. These contentions were put forth by the appellant’s counsel to argue against granting bail to the petitioners, citing various factors such as the Covid-19 pandemic, the violation of bail conditions, the passage of time, and the complexity introduced by the split-up case.

 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

Sri. Divakar Maddur, who is referred to as the High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) submitted that the petitioners had violated the bail conditions by absconding. It was contended that the petitioners’ actions constituted a breach of the court’s previous bail order. The respondent highlighted the timeline of events, stating that the petitioners absconded from the year 2020 until they were apprehended in 2023 after Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued against them. This prolonged absence was presented as evidence of the petitioners’ disregard for the legal proceedings. The respondent’s counsel challenged the claim made by the appellant’s counsel regarding the petitioners’ absence being attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was argued that there was no material presented to substantiate this claim or confirm whether the petitioners had contracted the virus. The respondent pointed out that due to the petitioners’ absconding, a split-up case had been registered, adding complexity to the legal proceedings. It was suggested that this additional complexity warranted denying bail to the petitioners. These contentions were presented by the respondent’s counsel to support their argument against granting bail to the petitioners, emphasising the violation of bail conditions, the prolonged absence of the petitioners, the absence of evidence regarding Covid-19, and the complexity introduced by the split-up case.

 COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court acknowledged that the petitioners had violated the bail conditions by absconding, as highlighted by both the appellant’s and respondent’s counsels. This was considered a significant factor in the court’s decision-making process.The court noted the timeline of events, stating that the petitioners had absconded from 2020 until they were apprehended in 2023 after Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued against them. This extended period of absence was deemed concerning by the court.

The court scrutinised the claim made by the appellant’s counsel regarding the petitioners’ absence being due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was observed that there was no evidence presented to substantiate this claim or confirm whether the petitioners had contracted the virus.

The court acknowledged the additional complexity introduced by the split-up case registered due to the petitioners’ absconding. This was considered a complicating factor in the legal proceedings.

After considering all the arguments presented by both sides, the court exercised its discretion and concluded that it was not appropriate to grant bail to the petitioners again. The court emphasised the seriousness of the charges, the violation of bail conditions, the prolonged absence of the petitioners, and the absence of evidence regarding Covid-19 as key factors in its decision.

The court ultimately rejected the Criminal Petition filed by the petitioners seeking bail. Additionally, the Trial Court was directed to consider the matter expeditiously, ensuring timely justice.

In summary, the court’s analysis and judgement focused on the violation of bail conditions, the extended absence of the petitioners, the lack of evidence regarding the Covid-19 claim, and the complexity introduced by the split-up case. These factors collectively led the court to deny the petitioners’ request for bail.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement

0

Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Dowry Harassment, Considering Gravity and Allegations, Bail Granted

Blog, High Court of Karnataka, Karnataka High Court , , ,

Case Title: Chandra Mohan v. State of Karnataka

Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 3843 of 2024

Dated On: 16th day of May, 2024

Quorum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

FACTS OF THE CASE

The complainant’s marriage with accused No.1, Chandra Mohan, was solemnised on 28.05.2017. At the time of marriage, the complainant’s family provided a dowry that included a 25-gram gold chain, a 10-gram ring, and Rs.5,00,000/- in cash. The couple has two children, aged about five years and one year and nine months. The complainant, a government servant, alleges that accused No.1 married her for her money and property. After the marriage, accused No.1 did not show love and affection and complained that the dowry was insufficient, continuing to mentally torture her. It is alleged that this harassment was instigated by accused Nos.2 to 6 (the family members of accused No.1). On 21.01.2024, between 10:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., accused No.1 allegedly demanded the complainant’s entire salary and the transfer of a property site in her mother’s name to him. When the complainant refused, accused No.1 assaulted her, mishandled her, and attempted to strangle her, threatening her life. The complainant filed a police complaint on 06.03.2024. The police registered a case against the accused for offences under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives), 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 114 (abettor present when offence is committed), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly) of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case is still under investigation. The petitioners claim that the complaint is a reaction to an earlier complaint filed by Chandra Mohan (accused No.1) on 02.02.2024. In his complaint, Chandra Mohan alleged that the complainant did not allow him to care for his aged mother, who is suffering from cancer. The defence presented documents showing that petitioner No.2 (the mother of accused No.1) is receiving treatment for cancer. The defence argued that the complainant’s allegations are false and were made after the police had previously advised her based on the husband’s complaint. Petitioners 1, 3-6 have professional and personal responsibilities which they argue mitigate against their involvement in the alleged offences. The case revolves around allegations of dowry harassment, assault, and an attempt to murder by the husband and his family members against the complainant, who is his wife. The defence contends the allegations are retaliatory following the husband’s prior complaint about mistreatment by the wife. The court has considered the context, including the health condition of the husband’s mother and the professional background of some petitioners, and granted anticipatory bail with conditions.

 ISSUES

  1. Are the allegations made by the complainant against her husband (accused No.1) and his family members (petitioners 2 to 6) credible and substantiated by evidence?
  2. How does the delay between the alleged incident (21.01.2024) and the filing of the complaint (06.03.2024) affect the case?
  3. Should the petitioners be granted anticipatory bail considering the seriousness of the charges and their personal circumstances?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Indian Penal Code (IPC):
    • Section 498A: Husband or relative of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
      • This section deals with the offence of a husband or his relatives subjecting a woman to cruelty, including physical or mental harm or harassment for dowry.
    • Section 307: Attempt to murder.
      • This section addresses attempts to commit murder, prescribing severe penalties for anyone who does an act with intent to cause the death of another person.
    • Section 323: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
      • This section provides punishment for causing hurt voluntarily, which is applicable if physical injuries are inflicted.
    • Section 114: Abettor present when the offence is committed.
      • This section applies when a person abets an offence and is present at the time of its commission.
    • Section 504: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
      • This section pertains to intentional insult with the intention of provoking a breach of the peace.
    • Section 506: Punishment for criminal intimidation.
      • This section deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation, which involves threatening someone with injury to their person, reputation, or property.
    • Section 149: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of the offence committed in the prosecution of a common object.
      • This section holds every member of an unlawful assembly liable for offences committed in pursuit of the common objective of the assembly.

2.  Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961:

    • Section 3: Penalty for giving or taking dowry.
      • This section prescribes penalties for giving or taking dowry, making it a punishable offence.
    • Section 4: Penalty for demanding dowry.
      • This section deals with the penalty for demanding dowry, which is punishable by law.

3.  Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):

    • Section 438: Direction for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest.
      • This section provides the legal framework for granting anticipatory bail to individuals who anticipate arrest on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Sri D.S. Sathish, Advocate counsel of the appellant submitted that the complaint filed against them is an afterthought and retaliatory in nature. They assert that it was lodged only after the husband filed a complaint against the complainant, suggesting a motive of malice rather than genuine grievances. Pointing out the significant delay between the alleged incident and the filing of the complaint, the appellant contends that this casts doubt on the authenticity and seriousness of the allegations. They argue that such a delay undermines the credibility of the complainant’s claims. The appellant challenges the severity of the allegations by questioning the medical evidence provided. They argue that the injuries documented in the medical report are minor, contradicting the complainant’s claims of a serious assault and attempted murder. Highlighting their respectable positions in society, such as being a teacher and being employed in the police department, the appellant argues that their professional responsibilities make it improbable for them to engage in the alleged criminal activities. The appellant asserts that family members implicated in the complaint are innocent and wrongly accused. They argue that there is no substantial evidence to support the allegations against these individuals. Lastly, the appellant seeks anticipatory bail, emphasising their willingness to cooperate with the investigation and asserting that they pose no threat to the legal process. They argue that given the circumstances and the lack of credibility in the allegations, granting anticipatory bail is justified. These contentions collectively aim to challenge the credibility and timing of the complaint, question the supporting evidence, highlight the appellant’s respectable standing, and seek relief in the form of anticipatory bail.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

Smt. Waheeda M.MHCGP (High Court Government Pleader) counsel of the respondent submitted that the complainant’s allegations of dowry harassment and attempted murder are well-founded and supported by evidence. They argue that the complainant has provided a detailed account of the harassment she faced from her husband and his family members, including specific instances of violence and threats against her life. While acknowledging the delay in filing the complaint, the respondent argues that the complainant has provided a plausible explanation for the delay. They contend that the complainant was subjected to continuous harassment and abuse, which made her hesitant to come forward with her grievances immediately. Moreover, they argue that the delay does not undermine the credibility of the allegations, as the complainant’s fear of reprisal and societal pressure may have contributed to the delay. The respondent disputes the appellant’s interpretation of the medical evidence and the severity of the injuries sustained by the complainant. They assert that while the injuries may have been classified as minor, they were still the result of a violent assault and should be taken seriously by the court. The respondent challenges the appellant’s assertion of respectability, arguing that the appellant and his family members have a history of abusive behaviour towards the complainant. They contend that the appellant’s professional standing should not exempt him from accountability for his actions. The respondent maintains that the involvement of family members in the alleged offences is supported by the complainant’s testimony and other corroborating evidence. They argue that family members played an active role in instigating and perpetrating the harassment and violence against the complainant. Finally, the respondent opposes the appellant’s request for anticipatory bail, citing the seriousness of the charges and the risk of interference with the ongoing investigation. They argue that granting anticipatory bail would undermine the administration of justice and the complainant’s right to seek redress for the harm she has suffered. These contentions reflect the respondent’s position on the case and their arguments in opposition to the appellant’s claims.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court began by summarising the factual background of the case. It outlined the complainant’s allegations of dowry harassment and attempted murder against her husband (accused No.1) and his family members (petitioners 2 to 6). The court noted the specific instances of alleged violence and harassment detailed by the complainant, as well as the delay between the incident and the filing of the complaint.

The court then examined the contentions presented by the appellant. It considered the appellant’s assertions regarding the false and retaliatory nature of the complaint, the delay in filing the complaint, the interpretation of the medical evidence, the character and professional standing of the appellants, the implication of family members, and the request for anticipatory bail.

After analysing the appellant’s arguments, the court reviewed the respondent’s counter arguments. It considered the respondent’s position on the credibility of the complainant’s allegations, the explanation for the delay in filing the complaint, the severity of the injuries based on medical evidence, the character of the appellant and his family members, the involvement of family members in the alleged offences, and the opposition to anticipatory bail.

Moving on to the legal analysis, the court examined the relevant legal provisions, including sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to dowry harassment, attempted murder, and other offences, as well as sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) pertaining to anticipatory bail.

The court then deliberated on the appellant’s request for anticipatory bail. It weighed the seriousness of the charges, the risk of interference with the investigation, and the likelihood of the appellant absconding or tampering with evidence against the appellants’ personal circumstances and the potential need for protection from arrest.

After careful consideration of the arguments presented and the evidence on record, the court rendered its judgement. It allowed the criminal petition and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants, subject to certain conditions. The court imposed conditions including surrender before the Investigating Officer, execution of a personal bond, cooperation with the investigation, and prohibition from leaving the jurisdiction without prior permission.

In its judgement, the court provided reasoning for its decision, addressing the issues raised by both parties and explaining the basis for granting anticipatory bail. The court emphasised the need to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice and concluded that the conditions imposed would adequately safeguard the interests of the prosecution while ensuring the protection of the appellants’ rights.

The court concluded by issuing a final order granting anticipatory bail to the appellants in light of the circumstances of the case and the arguments presented by both parties. It directed the appellants to comply with the specified conditions and to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

 

Click here to view judgement

1 2 3