1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO.1947/2018
BETWEEN
1. SRI RAJANNA
S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
2. SMT SUVARNAMMA
W/O RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/O KODIHALLY VILLAGE
KESTUR POST, KORA HOBLI-572 128
TUMAKURU TALUK AND TUMAKURU DIST
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.V. B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KORA POLICE STATION
TUMAKURU DIST
2. SMT SHYMALA G S
D/O G S SIDDAGANGAPPA
W/O JAGADEESH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O TYAMAGONDALU
NELAMANGALA TALUK-662 123
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP FOR R1)
2
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME
NO.190/2015 (NOW C.C.NO.1778/2016) REGISTERED
BY THE RESPONDENT-KORA POLICE STATION,
TUMAKURU TALUK, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
HON’BLE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND
JMFC, TUMAKURU, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
P/U/SS. 498A, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3
AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, REGISTERED ON
THE COMPLAINT OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ALONG
WITH IA NO.1/2018 THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Perused the records.
2. The respondent-Police have laid the charge
sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and also
under Sections 3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ( for
short, D.P. Act).
3. The Police have recorded the statements of
many witnesses. As some allegations are made against
the petitioners, the truth or falsity of the same cannot
be considered at this stage, without looking into the
3
entire charge sheet papers. The court cannot even
weigh the materials on record to ascertain whether
there are sufficient materials to proceed against the
petitioners/accused by framing charges and in fact,
that can be done by the trial Court at the time of
hearing before charge.
4. As could be seen from the records, the
matter is now posted before the trial Court for hearing
before charge. Therefore, I do not find any reason to
quash the proceedings. However, liberty is given to the
petitioners to approach the trial Court by making
necessary application for their discharge. In that
eventuality, the trial Court has to consider such
application and after providing opportunity to the
parties on both sides, dispose of the same in
expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
With the above observation, the petition is
dismissed.
4
In view of disposal of this case, the application-IA
No.1/2018 filed for stay, does not survive for
consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGR*