Karnataka High Court Declines To Quash Murder Case Filed By Son Against Father Over Death Of Mother Who Fell From 16th Floor Apartment

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash murder proceedings initiated by a man against his father after his mother died by falling from their apartment situated on the 16th floor.

Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petition filed by Devendra Bhatia said “When the evidence of both the children as quoted hereinabove would pin the petitioner down albeit, prima facie, it is ununderstandable as to how this Court would exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on an offence under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused and obliterate the trial. If the children have complained against the petitioner narrating vivid details, it becomes a matter for a full-blown trial, where the petitioner has to come out clean.”

As per the prosecution's case on 26-08-2018, the petitioner is said to have sensed some noise from the kitchen and went 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 looks down from the 16th floor of the balcony and finds a lot of people gathered there. When he and his son rushed to the ground floor, they found his wife lying with injuries. She succumbed to those injuries.

The son, 14-days after the incident and on completion of the rituals, lodged a complaint with the police against his father. The police on investigation filed a chargesheet against him under Section 302 (Murder) and 498-A (Cruelty) of Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a discharge application before the trial court, which came to be dismissed and thus he moved the court for quashing.

The petitioner argued that the power to change the Investigating Officer from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction is not available with the Commissioner of Police. It can be done only by the concerned Court or this Court.

Moreover, it was stated that the allegations made against the petitioner are all improbable. A father cannot be imagined to push the wife down as narrated by his son, the de facto complainant. It was an accidental fall from the balcony at best. There is neither offence of Section 498A nor offence of Section 306 abetment to suicide, and can never be an offence under Section 302 murder of his wife. The son did not have a cordial relationship with his father, the petitioner.

The complainant argued that it is too late in the day for the petitioner to allege that the transfer of investigation, which happened in the year 2018, is erroneous. Power under Section 36 of the Cr.P.C. is available for the transfer of investigation if it is within the same Division or jurisdiction.

Further, the statement recorded under Section 164 was not of the son alone; the daughter as well would clearly pin down the petitioner for both the offences.

Findings:

On going through the complaint and the statement of the children under Section 164 CrPC, the bench rejected the submission of the petitioner about the offence being highly improbable.

It said, “The same yardstick applies also to the children, that why would they complain against the father? The vivid narration of the daughter in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the son, of a more vivid description would clearly mean that the petitioner is to be tried for both the offences.”

Further it said, “The submission that there is no allegation of demand of dowry is of no avail, as it is trite law that in the absence of demand of dowry also, cruelty can form the fulcrum of the allegation. The allegation, I mean the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. Therefore, the offence under Section 498A of the IPC prima facie found and is to be tried.”

The court also rejected the submission of the petitioner about the change of investigation from one police station to another.

Dismissing the petition, the court held, “There is no warrant to entertain the petition and lend a protective umbrella to the petitioner. The petition draped in imaginary legal infirmities has bereft of any redeeming foundation, therefore, has to meet its dismissal.”

Appearance: Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha for Advocate Mahammadali for Petitioner.

Additional SPP B.N Jagadeesha FOR R-1 TO R-3.

Advocate Manu P Kulkarni for R4.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 95

Case Title: Devendra Bhatia AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.19567 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order