Gowramma W/O Munivenkata Reddy Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. by the Spp High Court of Karnataka - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- trade unions act, 1926[c.a. no. 16/1926]. section 2(h): [h.n. nagamohan das, j] settlement under section 18 of the industrial disputes act, 1947 negotiation with union held, in the absence of code of conduct recognising union which enjoys support of majority of workmen, it is not proper to exclude the recognised trade union from the proceedings before the tribunal. tradition of simultaneous but separate negotiation with both unions for sufficient length of time will have a binding force. impugned award was liable to be quashed......on the complaint given by one narayanamma. according to her statement, no direct allegation is made against the petitioner for having indulged in acts constituting the offence under section 307 i.p.c or any other offence. learned counsel submits to save the ordeal of trial, quashing of f.i.r. is necessary.3. i have perused the records.4. it is seen that on the complaint given by narayanamma, the case was registered against the petitioner and her son-nagaraja reddy, alleging that on the death of narayanamma's husband, her foster daughter-gowramma and biological daughter-anandamma were living in cholanayakanahalli and the latter was eking out her livelihood from the rent collected from a small house. gowramma demanded rent from anandamma and locked her house, saying she would compromise only if the house is vacated. when the complainant and other members of sri shakti sangh visited gowramma to resolve the issue, she threatened them with dire consequences. again on 22.10.2008 at 10.30 a.m. the complainant took the help of sujatha, manjuia, shantamma and others and tried to persuade gowramma not to harass her daughter. but her son, nagaraju brought a wooden stick and assaulted her.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Jawad Rahim, J.

1. The petitioner is co-accused in Crime No. 248/08 of Hebbal police for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case in question has been registered on the complaint given by one Narayanamma. According to her statement, no direct allegation is made against the petitioner for having indulged in acts constituting the offence under Section 307 I.P.C or any other offence. Learned Counsel submits to save the ordeal of trial, quashing of F.I.R. is necessary.

3. I have perused the records.

4. It is seen that on the complaint given by Narayanamma, the case was registered against the petitioner and her son-Nagaraja Reddy, alleging that on the death of Narayanamma's husband, her foster daughter-Gowramma and biological daughter-Anandamma were living in Cholanayakanahalli and the latter was eking out her livelihood from the rent collected from a small house. Gowramma demanded rent from Anandamma and locked her house, saying she would compromise only if the house is vacated. When the complainant and other members of Sri Shakti Sangh visited Gowramma to resolve the issue, she threatened them with dire consequences. Again on 22.10.2008 at 10.30 a.m. the complainant took the help of Sujatha, Manjuia, Shantamma and others and tried to persuade Gowramma not to harass her daughter. But her son, Nagaraju brought a wooden stick and assaulted her on the hands and other parts of the body. The Sangh members interfered and safeguarded her.

5. The contention of the petitioner that no case is made out against her is, therefore, belied from the complaint itself. The complainant has clearly indicted Gowramma and her son Nagaraj Reddy as persons responsible for trespass and holding threat to their life and causing injury to their person. No doubt assault is attributed to Nagaraja Reddy and that Gowramma had only harassed and threatened the complainant and her daughter of dire consequences. In the circumstances, it cannot be said there is no prima facie material against the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to seek discharge before the trial court during trial.

6. No case is made out to exercise the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. The petition is therefore dismissed.