Evidence cannot be appreciated while deciding the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.: High Court of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2860 2021 1 . PRADEEP MOPARTHY WRONGLY INDICATED AS PRADEEP MOPRATHY AGED 38 YEARS SON OF MR M PRASAD BABU PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.6 13TH CROSS ANNAPOORNESHWARI LAYOUT OPPOSITE ASHA KIRAN SCHOOL) HORAMAVU ROAD RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BENGALURU 560 043 2 . PRASANTHI AGED 40 YEARS D O MR M PRASAD BABU AND WIFE OF SANJEEV KUMAR VARA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.10 13TH CROSS ANNAPOORNESHWARI LAYOUT OPPOSITE ASHA KIRAN SCHOOL) HORAMAVU ROAD RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BENGALURU 560 043 3 . SANJEEV KUMAR VARA AGED 46 YEARS SON OF MR V JEEVARATNAM PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.10 13TH CROSS ANNAPOORNESHWARI LAYOUT OPPOSITE ASHA KIRAN SCHOOL) HORAMAVU ROAD RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BENGALURU 560 043 BY SRI.ARJUN REGO ADV. ) … PETITIONERS 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU 560 016 REPRESENTED BY ITS CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE 2. K. ANUPA AGED 31 YEARS WIFE OF PRADEEP MOPARTHY NO.6 13TH CROSS ANNAPOORNESHWARI LAYOUT OPPOSITE TO ASHA KIRAN SCHOOL HORAMAVU ROAD RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BANGALORE 560 016 AND NOW AT NO.145 SRT SANATHNAGAR HYDERABAD 500018 BY SRI. ROHITH B.J. HCGP FOR R1 ) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 15.12.2019 IN C.C.NO.53398 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE 10th ACMM BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P U S 498 A 323 504 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT GRANTING SIMULTANEOUSLY TO THE PETITIONERS THEIR COSTS. This petition coming on for Admission this day the court made the following: O R D E R petitioners. Heard Sri. Arjun Rego learned counsel for the This petition is filed under Section 482 of C.C.No.53398 2020 on the file of the 10th ACMM The petitioners have been prosecuted in relation to offences punishable under sections 323 504 506 and 498 A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act r w section 34 of IPC. The 1st petitioner is the husband of 2nd respondent. Their marriage was performed on 05.09.2015 in Hyderabad. On certain allegations that the petitioners subjected the 2nd respondent harassment in connection with demand for dowry FIR was registered. Investigation was taken up and now charge sheet has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the entire charge sheet which is based on statements of witnesses is considered it can be said that no offence against the petitioners is made out. 6. Though under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. charge sheet can be quashed the said jurisdiction cannot be invoked for quashing the charge sheet by appreciating the evidence. It is a settled principle that while deciding the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. evidence cannot be appreciated as it lies within the domain of the Trial Court. In this view I do not find any ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. Consequently I.A.1 2021 also stands disposed of. Sd JUDGE 

Summary: The Issue was whether a petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. (i.e., Inherent powers of High Court) for quashing of charge sheet in a criminal case, can appreciate evidence in that regard. This was clarified in the case of Pradeep Moparthy v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No.2860/2021, on 15th December, 2021, by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar. A Criminal Petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the Karnataka High Court for quashing the charge sheet in C.C.No.53398/2020 on the file of the 10th ACMM, Bengaluru against the petitioner. In the contents of the charge sheet, the petitioners have been accused of offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The complainant filed in the trail court portrays that the 1st petitioner is the husband of 2nd respondent in the instant case. And that their marriage was performed on 05.09.2015 in Hyderabad. However, on certain allegations that the petitioners subjected the 2nd respondent to harassment in connection with demand for dowry, an F.I.R. was registered. Later, an investigation was taken up and the charge sheet has been filed before the 10th ACMM Court, Bangalore. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that if the entire charge sheet which is based on statements of witnesses is considered, it can be said that no offence against the petitioners is made out in this case. However, the Court passed an order rejecting the plea of the petitioner. The Court in its order stated as follows: “Though under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. charge sheet can be quashed, the said jurisdiction cannot be invoked for quashing the charge sheet by appreciating the evidence.”  Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar remarked that, “It is a settled principle that while deciding the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., evidence cannot be appreciated as it lies within the domain of the Trial Court”.   Click here to view Judgement