L.J. MALATHI VS. THE STATE BY KPS.RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATIOJN HOME ETC.ETC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 336-338 OF 2017

L.J. MALATHI ..... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE BY KPS.RAMAMURTHY NAGAR

POLICE STATIOJN HOME ETC.ETC & ANR.

..... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. We have heard Mr. C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted

by Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae.

We have also heard Mr. H. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for

respondent No.3.

2. From the record of the proceedings, we find that at the

initial stage, appellant had appeared in person. In the proceedings

held on 18.07.2016, this Court recorded that though it had heard

the appellant in person for some time, assistance of a senior

counsel to assist the Court would be required. Accordingly, Mr.

Singh and Mr. Katneshwarkar have been appointed as Amicus Curiae to

assist the Court.

3. On a query by the Court, Mr. Singh submits that as per

information furnished to him, appellant is unwell and, therefore,

unable to appear in Court.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Appellant is aggrieved by judgment and order of the High Court

of Karnataka at Bangalore (briefly the ‘High Court’ hereinafter)

1

dated 27.11.2015 whereby the criminal complaint filed by her was

quashed.

6. We may straightaway advert to the criminal complaint filed by

the appellant on 18.07.2011 before the Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate at Bangalore and was registered as PCR No.195/2011.

Paragraphs 3 to 6 are relevant and are extracted hereunder:

3. On 20th May 2004 when the complainant was

in shop pursuing her business around 11.00

am, accused No.1 called complainant’s mobile

phone and asked her to come near Nagawara

Ring Road to go to Munikrishna's house for a

meeting where her grievances would be

addressed.

4. Believing the words of accused No. 1,

Complainant went to the said place around

11.30 am from where the accused took her by

car. Munikrishna's house is in Hebbal and

they were supposed to go to Hebbal. But when

the accused No. 1 drove his car to NH-7 and

proceeded in that direction, then the

complainant asked him where he is taking her,

he replied then the said Mr. Munikrishna is

at Nandi Hills then, they will meet him there

itself. Since the Complainant reposed faith

in accused No. 1 she did not doubt about him.

5. Around 2.30 pm they reached Nandi Hills.

After getting down from the car accused No. 1

took her to the temple where he promised her

that he will look after her and promote her.

After wards he took her to guest house saying

that the said Mr. Munikrishna is there and

they can talk to him. When both entered the

guest house the accused No.1 took her to one

2

already booked room. To her shock and

surprise the said Mr. Munikrishna was not

there, the accused No. 1 hooked

the one room from inside and

had sexual intercourse forcibly against

complainant's will without consent.

6. Thus the accused No. 1 committed the

offence of rape against the complainant.

7. As would be evident from the above, the incident complained of

is dated 20.05.2004, whereas the date of lodging of the complaint

is 18.07.2011. In other words, there is a delay of more than 7

years in lodging of the complaint. In the remainder part of the

complaint, we do not find any good reason given to justify such

belated lodging of the complaint. In her supporting application

dated 28.09.2011 for condoning the delay in lodging of the

complaint, the following averments have been made:

2. I say that after the incident stated in

the complaint I was under deep shock. The

accused had threatened me about the

consequences of the complaint and prevented

me to lodge a complaint.

3. I say that I had given a police complaint

on 26.10.2007 for which the jurisdictional

police had not taken any action. During that

period my younger son was aged about 4 years

and elder son was aged about 12 years for

whom I had to look after.

4. I say that all accused are powerful and

influential persons having money and muscle

power were able to prevent me from

approaching this Hon’ble court. In view of

3

the above I was not able to file above

complaint.

5. I say that the delay in filing the above

complaint is bonafide and unintentional.

8. We are afraid those cannot be construed to be good grounds to

condone the inordinate delay of more than 7 years in lodging of the

complaint. If the appellant was aggrieved by the action of the

police in not registering the First Information Report on the basis

of her first information, she had her remedy under the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) but she did not avail

of any such remedy.

9. Coming to the impugned judgment and order of the High Court,

the High Court has noted amongst others the following facts:

(viii) It is stated that the learned

Magistrate without application of mind has

taken cognizance under Section 190 CrPC. It

is stated the complainant respondent is

involved in more than 40 cases. She is a

habitual offender and in the habit of lodging

false complaint against the politicians,

political workers, persons involved in social

life including police, government officials

to extract money from them. She has lodged

several complaints against several others

alleging rape on her.

9.1. While we take note of the above observations made by the

High Court, we however refrain from commenting on the same as the

case has to be decided on its own merit.

9.2. Finally the High Court recorded the following:

4

27. It is the case of the respondent

complainant that she was criminally assaulted

by committing rape on 20.5.2004 by the

accused No.1 (petitioner No.1 in Crl.P

No.6934/2014) and dashed his car to her two-

wheeler on 28.5.2004. Both the offences under

Section 376 & 307 IPC are cognizable and

serious offences triable by Court of

Sessions. The respondent complainant has not

even mentioned the number of the vehicle in

which she was traveling and the vehicle which

hit her two-wheeler.

28. The respondent complainant has stated in

her sworn statement that after the incident

on 20.5.2004 the accused No.1 was using her

once in two days, three days, five days and 8

days. She has also stated in Page 3 of her

sworn statement that on 28.5.2004 after he

dashed her two-wheeler he himself took her in

his car and got her admitted in Sathya

Hospital and thereafter shifted to NIMHANS,

there the doctor told that the complainant

was alright and advised to take her. Both the

accused No.1 and his wife dropped the

complainant to her house. Thereafter, accused

No.1 visited the house of the complainant

once in two days or three days. Thereafter,

it is stated once in a month, two months and

eight months the accused No.1 visited

complainant and used her. She has stated that

in 2006 she stopped accused No.1 from

visiting to her house when he attempted to

send others to her house, but accused No.1

used her from 2004 to 2006. It is also stated

5

by the complainant that all the accused are

friends of her husband.

29. The respondent complainant has also

examined her son M Manoj and in his sworn

statement he has stated that out of the

accused Ananda Reddy, Raju Reddy, Sridhar

Reddy, Ananda Reddy and Raju Reddy were

visiting their house and the shop. They used

to take things on credit basis. In 2006 their

shop was looted and they had broken the hand

of his mother. On 23.5.2011 when himself and

his mother were coming in the vehicle, Ananda

Reddy and his friends teased them and his

mother lodged complaint before Banasawadi

Police Station.

10. After alluding to the above, the High Court noticed that no

resistance was offered by the appellant when she was taken to Nandi

Hills on 20.05.2004. In fact, High Court noticed that there was

much familiarity between the appellant and the third respondent

which continued up to 2006.

11. In so far the allegation against the respondent No.3 that he

had made an attempt to kill her, the same has also been disbelieved

by the High Court considering the certificate issued by the

National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (Nimhans)

dated 28.05.2004 which indicated that the injury suffered by the

appellant could have been caused due to fall from a two-wheeler as

opposed to her claim that her two-wheeler was dashed by the car of

respondent No.3.

12. High Court noted that no material was brought out even prima

facie to attract the offence of Section 307 IPC. In the

6

circumstances, the High Court was of the view that allowing the

complaint proceeding to continue would lead to harassment of the

third respondent and thereby would be an abuse of the process of

the Court.

13. We have independently gone through the complaint and other

materials on record. On thorough consideration of all aspects of

the matter and on due application of mind, we concur with the view

taken by the High Court and do not think the present to be a fit

case for our interference, more so when the outcome of the

complaint, if allowed to continue, is a foregone conclusion.

14. Before parting with the record, we would like to place on

record our sincere appreciation for the services rendered by Mr.

C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel and Mr. Nishant R.

Katneshwarkar, learned counsel who has ably assisted the Court as

Amicus Curiae.

15. In the circumstances, we do not find any good reason to

interfere with the finding recorded by the High Court.

16. Considering the above, the criminal appeals are dismissed.

17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

......................J.

(UJJAL BHUYAN)

......................J.

(ATUL S. CHANDURKAR)

NEW DELHI;

August 04th, 2026.

IZ

7

ITEM NO.109 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-E

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No. 336-338/2017

L.J. MALATHI Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE BY KPS.RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATIOJN HOME

ETC.ETC & ANR. Respondent(s)

Mr. Nishant Katneshwarkar, Advocate is appointed to assist Mr. C.U

Singh, Senior Advocate in view of Court;s Order dated- 18.07.2016.

IA No. 7520/2016 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON

IA No. 156941/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL

DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES

IA No. 146991/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL

DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES

IA No. 14105/2016 - PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES

Date : 04-08-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR

For Appellant(s) : Petitioner-in-person

Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR

Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv. (A.C.)

Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv. (A.C.)

Mr. Vijay Singh Mehra, Adv.

Mr. Dipak Vibhute (not legible)

For Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Chandra Sekhar, AOR

Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. Criminal appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.

2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(IRAMNAZ) (CHETNA BALOONI)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

(Signed order is placed on the file)

8