IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1711! DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITON No.8421/2010 BETWEEN: Smt. Devikurnari @ Ushadevi, W/o. Hanamantappa, Major, 0cc: Household work, Rio. Manakapadi, Dhiratai Kyavu, Ashokpuram, Post. Alve, Dist. Eranakularn, State Kerala. . . . Petitioner (By Shri. Srinand A. Pachhapure, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Through Vidyanagar P.S.Hubli, Now represented by S.P.P. 2. Smt. Vijaylaxmi, W/o. S.M.Srinivas, Age: 28 years, 0cc: Household work, Rio. I—I.D.Chulaki, H.No.73/2, Siddakalyan Nagar, Hubli, District. Dharwad. . . . Respondents (By Shri. Vinayak S. Kulkarni, Government Pleader) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash the initiation of 2 Firs Information Report and complaint in Crime No.67/2010 dated 10.08.2010 registered for the offences punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the said FIR., at Annexure-A and B. This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The brieffacts ofthe case are as follows: That on 04.08.2010, the complainant, accused and the son of the complainant, namely Varun, had been to hospital known as ‘Sukruta Hospital’ to visit the complainant who was admitted there, on account of illness. It is alleged that, when the complainant went to the toilet, the accused had taken away her infant child without the complainant’s permission and went away from the hospital. The complainant made a desperate search for the child. Thereafter, she informed her husband, who was at Bagalkot and he came to Hubli at about 08:30 p.m., to whom she narrated the particulars. It is at 10:00 p.m. that the complainant received a call from the accused, petitioner herein, wherein, it is alleged that the child was in her custody and the I child would be returned on 05.08.2010. However, it is alleged that the petitioner went away to Alpe in Kerala. It is in this background, that the complainant lodged a case with the \/idyanagar Police Station. which was registered as Crime No.67/2010. The petitioner having been enlarged on bail and the child of the complainant, having been handed over to the complainant, the present petition is filed to contend that there is no criminal offence made out as against the petitioner in the following background. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, true facts of the case are as follows: The parents of the child namely the complainant and her husband were not in a position take care of the child and to meet the expenses from the date of its birth. The child was with the grandmother, namely the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has produced a birth certificate by Aluva Municipality of District Ernakulam, Kerala, indicating the date of birth of the child on 27.06.2007. Further it is on a willful consent given by the complainant and her husband as per letter 4 dated 10.07.2009, which is duly notarized in favour of the petitioner, to demonstrate that the custody of the child was handed over to the petitioner, who is her grand mother. It is the petitioner, who was taking care of the child, in the light of the financial status of the complainant and her husband. It is as an after thought that the complainant and her husband have chosen to institute the criminal case merely to extract money from the petitioner. It is further alleged that the husband of the complainant and his brother had kidnapped the complainant and had informed the petitioner that she would be released only on payment of money. But however in spite of having received money, they had postponed the release of complainant and demanded further amounts. The petitioner had therefore, lodged a complaint before the Police Station, Ranebennur in June 2010. It is thereafter, in spite of that the husband of the complainant and her brother-in-law have instituted the present compliant through the complainant and it is in this background, that the learned counsel for the petitioner would seek that the proceedings before the lower Court be quashed. Having regard to the involved facts and circumstances, it is not a case where this Court to intervene under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner being confident of her defence and the circumstances which are sought to be pleaded to contend that there is no criminal offence, that can be made out against the petitioner would be able to do so even before the Court of Magistrate and seek the appropriate remedy of discharge at the relevant point of time. It is however, premature and out of place for the Court to intervene in the above facts and circumstances, to quash the proceedings. 4. Hence, without prejudice to the case of the petitioner to establish the case for discharge, the petition stands disposed of. Sd! JUDGE Rsh