Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Kar) 598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Hemant Chandangoudar, J.
Smt Shilpa S C - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 2743 of 2017
Decided On : 02-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
Sri. Nagaraj G., Advocate, for the Appellant; Sri. S. Vishwamurthy, HCGP, Sri. Babu Reddy, for the Respondent.

The court emphasized that the allegation against accused No.5 must constitute the commission of the alleged offences for the FIR to be valid.

Headnote:
Illicit Relationship - Quashing of FIR - The court quashed the FIR against the petitioner, accused No.5, as the allegation of illicit relationship did not constitute the commission of the alleged offences.
Fact of the Case:

The FIR was lodged alleging cruelty by accused No.1 to 4 and illicit relationship of accused No.5 with the husband of the informant.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegation of illicit relationship against accused No.5 did not constitute the commission of the alleged offences, and thus, quashed the FIR against accused No.5.
Issues: The issue was whether the allegation of illicit relationship against accused No.5 constituted the commission of the alleged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences, the registration of the FIR against accused No.5 was without substance.
Final Decision: The criminal petition was allowed, and the impugned FIR insofar as it related to accused No.5 was quashed.

ORDER

1. The First Information Report is lodged by the 2nd respondent alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1 and she was subjected to cruelty by accused No.1 to 4 and the accused No.5 - petitioner is having illicit relationship with her husband.

2. The police registered FIR for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506, 504 and 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner - accused No.5 has filed this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits THE that only allegation against the petitioner - accused No.5 is that, she is having illicit relationship with accused No.1 who is her legally wedded husband. Hence, the allegation made against the petitioner - accused No.5 does not constitute the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner. Hence, the registration of the FIR for the aforesaid offences is impermissible.

4. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the State submits that the allegations made in the FIR discloses that the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner - accused No.5.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

6. The only allegation as against the petitioner - accused No.5 is that she is having illicit relationship with the accused No.1 who is the husband of the respondent No.2 - informant. This allegation does not constitute the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner - accused No.5 and in the absence of any essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of the said offences, registration of the FIR against accused No.5 is without any substance.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Criminal petition is allowed.

The impugned FIR in Cr.No.547/2016 registered by the Vijayanagara Police Station, Bengaluru insofar it relates to petitioner - accused No.5 is hereby quashed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document