IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
Crl.P. No.9239 OF 2016
Aged about 22 years,
R/at No.130, 3rd B-Main Road,
4th Cross, Sumeshwaranagar,
Yelahanka Sattelite Town,
(By Sri.Kalyan R., Advocate)
1. The State of Karnataka,
By Yelahanka New Town Police,
Yelahanka Sub Division,
Rept. By Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
2. Smt. Nandini Kumar,
W/o Anil Kumar,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at Tayappa Building,
Pragatinagara, Hosur Road,
Electronic City, Bengaluru-560100.
(By Sri.Rachaiah, HCGP for R1;
Sri. R.V. Anand, Advocate for R2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the charge sheet filed by the
respondent No.1 for the offences P/U/S 498A, 504, 420
R/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3,4 of D.P. Act in
C.C.No.2378/2016, pending on the file of C.M.M.,
Bangalore and consequently to quash the taking
cognizance of the offence P/U/S 498A, 504, 420 R/w 34
of IPC and Sec.3,4 of D.P. Act in C.C.No.2378/2016
This Criminal petition is coming on for ‘admission’
this day, the Court made the following:
This is a petition filed by the petitioner-accused
No.3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 420 R/w
34 of IPC and Sec.3, 4 of D.P.Act in C.C.No.2378/2016,
pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Bengaluru and consequently quash the order of taking
cognizance for the said offences.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the petitioner and also the learned HCGP so also the
learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing
the attention on the complaint’s averments made a
submission that there are no specific allegation in the
present petition to make out a case as against the
petitioner for the alleged offences and he further
submits that she is innocent and she is doing
engineering Course. She never ill-treated the
complainant and a false case was lodged against her.
Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to quash
the proceedings against the petitioner.
4. Learned HCGP, so also the learned counsel
for the respondent No.2 draws the attention of the
Court on the contention of the complainant and made a
submission that so far as, the petitioner is concerned,
there is a mention in the complaint that along with her
mother and brother, she also abused the complainant
insisting her to bring the money which they have spent
for celebrating the marriage and also they insisted to go
out from the house, so that they would perform another
marriage of accused No.1. They also drew the attention
on the statement of complainant and made a
submission that even in the further statement, there are
allegations against the present petitioner that she was
abusing the complainant and also insisting to bring the
dowry amount. Hence, they submits that there is a
prima-facie case against the present petitioner as per
the complaint and further statement of complainant.
Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents
submit that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings
against the petitioner.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the
petition, FIR, complaint and other materials like charge
sheet etc., Looking to the complaint and further
statement of the complainant, there are allegations
against the petitioner.
6. I have also perused the statement of
Muniyamma W/o Santhosh Kumar and Statement of
another witness Santhosh Kumar. Even looking to the
statement of these witnesses, there is allegation as
against the present petitioner about the ill-treatment
given to the complainant. Looking to these materials
which were collected during investigation and charge
sheet makes out a prima-facie case against the
petitioner. Therefore, it is not a fit case for quashing the
proceedings. Hence, petition is hereby dismissed.
The observations made in the body of order are
only for the purpose of disposal of the petition.