SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2064

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J
MR. DEVENDRA BHATIA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.19567 OF 2023 (GM - RES)



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR.ADVOCATE, SRI MAHAMMADALI
For the Respondents: SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1 TO R-3, SRI MANU P.KULKARNI

The court affirmed that serious allegations of domestic violence and murder warranted a trial, and the transfer of investigation within jurisdiction was lawful under Section 36 of the Cr.P.C.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Accused challenged proceedings for offences under Sections 498A and 302 IPC as abuse of process of law - Allegations of domestic violence and murder by the accused against his wife - Court finds sufficient grounds for trial based on statements of children and evidence - Transfer of investigation within jurisdiction upheld as valid. (Paras 1, 16, 18)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Powers of police - Commissioner of Police's authority to transfer investigation - Court clarifies that transfer of investigation within the same jurisdiction is permissible under Section 36 of Cr.P.C. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of murdering his wife, challenged the proceedings initiated by his son, the defacto complainant. The incident occurred on Raksha Bandhan, leading to the wife's death from a fall from their apartment. Allegations of domestic violence were made by the son and daughter against the father, claiming he had a history of abusive behavior. (Paras 3-6)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations were serious enough to warrant a trial, emphasizing the children's statements and the nature of the evidence presented. The transfer of the investigation was deemed lawful. (Paras 16, 17)

Issues: Whether the allegations against the petitioner were sufficient to proceed with trial and if the transfer of investigation was valid under the law. (Paras 11, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the statements of the children provided a credible basis for trial, and the transfer of investigation did not violate any legal provisions. The court emphasized the need for a full trial to address the serious allegations made. (Paras 16, 18)

Result: Petition dismissed; trial to proceed.

Table of Content
1. incident details and family background. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding investigation and allegations. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. court's analysis of evidence and jurisdiction. (Para 11 , 17)
4. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 18)

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in S.C.No.715 of 2019 arising out of crime in Crime No.251 of 2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC before the RMC Yard Police Station, Bengaluru City.

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner is the accused and 4th respondent is his son, defacto complainant. The petitioner gets married to one Mrs. Kiran Bhatia on 08-05-1995 which would be 23 years before the date of the alleged incident and from the wedlock two children are born, one the de-facto complainant and a daughter, both at the relevant point in time aged above 20 years. In this order, the petitioner and his wife, the deceased, would be referred to as father and mother respectively. It is the averment in the petition that the family did reside together cordially in a flat situated at 16th floor, Alpine ‘A’ Block, Golden Garden Apartment, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru. The petitioner is said to be an employee at ABB as a software Engineer.

3. The case revolves round an incident that happened on 26-08-2018. It is the averment that it was a Raksha Bandhan day. On the said day, the mother of the defacto complainant is said to have prepared the food, served the food to all and was staying in the living room of the house. The son, CW-1 was said to be in the room and the daughter CW-12 had been outside the apartment to attend coaching. At about 3.35 p.m. the petitioner is said to have sensed some noise from the kitchen and goes to the kitchen and found that the wife was not in the kitchen. He then moves to the utility and does not find her. In the balcony attached to the utility, he sees down from the 16th floor of the balcony and finds lot of people gathered there. He immediately told his son and both of them rushed to the ground floor where the wife of the petitioner was lying with injuries. She succumbed to those injuries.

4. The petitioner then informs RMC yard Police, as also the neighbours and relatives. The Police come to the spot and conduct a mahazar and record the statement of the defacto complainant and registered an unnatural death report in UDR No.31 of 2018 as obtaining under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. The body was then shifted to mortuary of M.S.Ramaiah Hospital awaiting arrival of the relatives.

5. The next day on 27-08-2018 the police conduct inquest panchanama on the body in the presence of the petitioner, his children and the relatives. There was no allegation of any involvement of the petitioner in the incident. The petitioner, his two children and the blood relatives travelled to Rajasthan, the place where they hailed to finish all the family rituals. After 14 days on completion of all rituals, the family comes back to Bangalore. The son/defacto complainant then registers a complaint on 11-09-2018 alleging that the petitioner, his father was always fighting with his mother, the deceased and in every fight, he was warning that he would kill her or she should die herself. It is the complaint that the father is the reason for the mother’s fall. Immediately, thereafter, a complaint comes to be registered in Crime No.251 of 2018 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. The petitioner was taken into custody and interrogated and is said to have been on bail later. On the score that the complainant had no confidence with the person who was investigating into the offence, represents to the Commissioner of Police for change of Investigating Officer. The investigation is shifted from RMC Yard Police Station to Bagalgunte Police Station coming within the same Division.

6. The Investigating Officer then files a requisition before the concerned Court t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top