Smt Yashoda K vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2017

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.743/2017

BETWEEN:

SMT.YASHODA K.
W/O RAMU K.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.202/B
5TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN
INDUSTRIAL TOWN
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
BANGALORE – 560 044. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI JAGADESH D. HIREMATH, ADV.)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
WOMEN POLICE STATION
DEVARAJA SUB-DIVISION
MYSORE – 570 005.

BEFORE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE – 560 001.

2. SRI RAMU K. S/O KRISHNA NAIK
AGED 46 YEARS
R/A NO.D-388
CISF QRTS, RBI
METAGALLI
MYSURU CITY – 570 005
KARNATAKA.
-2-

3. GANGAMMA W/O KRISHNA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.D-388
CISF QRTS, RBI
METAGALLI, MYSURU CITY
KARNATAKA

4. KRISHNA NAIK NOT KNOWN
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
C/O OF HOTEL MANJUNATH
BANGALORE ROAD,
NEAR OLD RAYANADURGA BUS STAND
BELLARY – 583 101.

5. SANDHYA W/O MANOHAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
C/O OF HOTEL MANJUNATH
BANGALORE ROAD,
NEAR OLD RAYANADURGA BUS STAND
BELLARY – 583 101.

6. RENUKA W/O CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
C/O OF HOTEL MANJUNATH
BANGALORE ROAD,
NEAR OLD RAYANADURGA BUS STAND
BELLARY – 583 101.

7. SUBRAMANYA
S/O KRISHNA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
C/O OF HOTEL MANJUNATH
BANGALORE ROAD,
NEAR OLD RAYANADURGA BUS STAND
BELLARY – 583 101.

8. GANESH S/O KRISHNA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
C/O OF HOTEL MANJUNATH
BANGALORE ROAD,
NEAR OLD RAYANADURGA BUS STAND
BELLARY – 583 101. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.NETHRAVATHI K., ADV.)
-3-

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU U/S 319 OF CRPC
DATED 09.06.2017 PASSED IN C.C.NO.369/2013.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Though the matter is listed for Admission, with the

consent of both Counsel, it is taken up for final

adjudication, having regard to the circumstances of the

case.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and

the learned HCGP for the respondent No.1/State. Notice

to other respondents dispensed with.

3. This revision petition is filed against the order of

the Sessions Court in rejecting the application filed by

the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. seeking

summons to the proposed accused persons, who are

none other than the family members of the first accused,

who is now charge sheeted by the prosecution for the
-4-

offence under Section 498A of IPC read with Sections 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The allegation of the prosecution is, the first

accused being the husband of complainant and the

second accused being her mother-in-law demanded and

received dowry in cash and kind during the marriage

held on 10.10.2011. On his transfer to Mysore, the first

accused at the instance of accused No.2, harassed the

complainant to get a residential house and he left her in

her parents’ house assuring to take her after arranging

quarters. But thereafter he did not take her nor pay her

expenses. However, the complainant through the

assistance of superior officers of accused No.1 was able

to secure the quarters, still he did not join her. On the

advice of the senior officers of accused No1, her father

took the complainant to the quarters; second accused

took exception against her for taking the matter to the

Department officials, necked her out of the house by
-5-

stating that if the demand is not complied, she will

arrange a second marriage for her son. During

counseling meeting by the senior officers, the first

accused sought time on health ground. On 23.1.2013,

the complainant and her family members went to the

house of the accused. The first accused picked up

quarrel with her. Again there was another round of

counseling and he agreed to take her to the matrimonial

home, etc.

5. The accused named in the FIR viz., accused

Nos.3 to 8 were dropped at the time of submitting the

charge sheet for want of evidence. During trial, PW-

1/complainant in her deposition stated to the effect that

the first accused was incited by his mother Gangamma

and father Krishnanaika, brother and sisters. That

prompted to prosecution to file application under Section

319 of Cr.P.C. to issue summons to add the accused,

who were dropped from the charge sheet.
-6-

6. Learned Sessions Judge after giving his audience

to both has noticed that one of the brothers is dead.

There is no higher degree of evidence to issue summons

to the additional accused, as sought.

7. On a perusal of the order impugned, except

vague allegation against the co-accused, who are dropped

from the charge sheet, there is no specific allegation

attributed against them. The order impugned is well-

reasoned and does not call for revisional jurisdiction of

this Court. Hence, the revision petition is rejected.

In view of disposal of the main petition,

I.A.No.1/2017 filed for stay does not survive for

consideration, hence, stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE
KNM/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *