1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.812 OF 2019

BETWEEN

1.

Sri Naveen G.,

S/o Govindappa,

Aged 34 years,

2.

Govindappa,

S/o Murudappa,

Aged 66 years,

3.

Smt. Bhagyamma,

W/o Govindappa,

Aged 56 years,

All are R/at No.98,

8^th Cross, 2^nd Main,

Nandini Layout, 2^nd Block,

Bengaluru-560096.

4.

Smt. G.Shivamma,

W/o C.Rudrappa,

Aged 64 years,

R/at No.70, CMC Water Supply Road,

Near Shiva Temple,

Muddinapalya,

Bengaluru-560091.

&Petitioners

(By Sri Manjunath B.R., Advocate)

2

AND

1.

State of Karnataka by

Hosadurga Police

Represented by

State Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Karnataka,

Bengaluru-560001.

2.

Smt. K.H.Shashikala,

D/o Hanumanthappa,

Aged 29 years,

R/o Mahalakshmi Layout,

Hosadurga Town,

Chitradurga District-577527.

&Respondents

(By Sri Rohith B.J., HCGP for R1;

Sri R.Shashidhar, Advocate for R2)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C., praying to quash the FIR in Cr.No.489/2018 of

Hosadurga Police Station registered for the offence

punishable under Section 506, 498-A, 504, 323, 324 read

with Section 34 of IPC and consequently quash all

proceeding in P.C.R.No.98/2018 on the file of the Principal

Civil Judge and JMFC at Hosadurga.

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission, this

day, through video conferencing, the Court made the

following:

ORDER

Heard Sri. Manjunath B.R., counsel for the

petitioners and Sri. R. Shashidhar, counsel for

respondent no.2. Government Pleader is also present.

3

2. This petition is filed under section 482

Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought to quash the FIR

in Cr.No.489/2018 registered by Hosadurga Police for

the offences under sections 323, 324, 498A, 504 and

506 r/w 34 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

3. The second respondent initiated a complaint

under section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners. The

learned Magistrate referred the matter to police for

investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and as a

result FIR came to be registered.

4. The only ground urged in this petition is that

the mandate of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case

of Priyanka Srivatsava Vs. State of U.P. 3 (2015)

6 SCC 287 has not been complied with. In the

complaint, nothing is stated to indicate that the

second respondent approached the police and the

4

Superintendent of Police before filing the complaint

under section 200 Cr.P.C. and that the respondent has

not produced any document in that regard.

5. If the complaint is perused, in para 8, it is

stated

that

the

second

respondent

being

the

complainant gave report to the Hosadurga Police, but

they did not take any action. But the complaint does

not indicate any effort being made by the second

respondent for having approached the Superintendent

of Police of the District. No documents are also

produced in support of her statement in Para 8 of the

complaint. It is clearly held by the Hon9ble Supreme

Court in Priayanka Srivatsava9s case that before

preferring a complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. for

seeking reference to the police under section 156(3)

Cr.P.C., there must be compliance of section 154(1)

and (3) of Cr.P.C. Affidavit has also not been filed.

Therefore the learned Magistrate ought not to have

5

referred the matter to police for investigation. In this

view, reference under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the

consequent registration of FIR against the petitioners

cannot be sustained. Therefore this petition deserves

to be allowed. Consequently the proceeding against

the petitioners in Cr.No.489/2018 is quashed.

However this order does not come in the way of

curing the defect by the second respondent. In case

the defect is cured, the Magistrate is at liber