Karnataka High Court B K Anupa vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2014Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2443/2013
BETWEEN :
1. B.K. ANUPA,
S/O B.A. KUMARA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/A NO.32/5, KAMALANAGARA, GRIHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
2ND STAGE, 3RD CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE 560079
2. B.K. PAVITHRA,
S/O B.A. KUMARA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/A NO.99, 10TH D CROSS, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
BANGALORE -560086.
3. B.A. KUMARA SWAMY, S/O D.S. ANANDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/A YELEGODANAHALLI
SHANKA POST,
SALAGAME HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK AND
DISTRICT – 573 219.
4. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA, W/O B.A. KUMARA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/A YELEGODANAHALLI
SHANKA POST
-2-
SALAGAME HOBLI
HASSAN TALUK AND
DISTRICT – 573 219.
5. B.K. GEETHA,
W/O SHIVA PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/A NO.M-4, 8TH CROSS,
3RD MAIN, LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE – 560 084.
6. S. SHIVA PRAKASH
S/O T.L. SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/A NO.M-4, 8TH CROSS
3RD MAIN, LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA BANGALORE – 560 084.
7. B.K THIRTHA @ ROOPA W/O M.G. LOKESH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/A NO.19, 2ND CROSS
NAGAPPA STREET,
PALACE GUTTAHALLI
BANGALORE – 560 003.
8. B.K. SUCHITHRA,
W/O VEERABHADRE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/A NO.118, B-4
SHARAVATHI BLOCK
NATIONAL GAMES COMPLEX
BANGALORE- 560 034.
9. UMASHANKAR .L,
S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
NO.1/4-3, 2ND FLOOR,
SUJATHA COMPLEX,
1ST MAIN ROAD,
GANDHINAGARA
BANGALORE 560009.
-3-
10. H.G. BALARAMA,
S/O GOPALU
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/A NO.18, 7TH MAIN
JC NAGAR
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BANGALORE -86. … PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.N.MADHUSUDHAN, ADV., )
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY HALASURGATE
WOMEN POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE – 560 002.
2. SMT. SRIDEVI .N, W/O ANUP B.K.
MAJOR
NO.3263, 5TH CROSS,
2ND MAIN, GAYATHRINAGAR, BANGALORE CITY- 560 021. … RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.BHUSHANI KUMAR, ADV., FOR R2, SRI B.J.ESWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF CRIME NO.52/13 OF HALASURGATE WOMEN P.S., BANGALORE AND THE SAME IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE, BY ALLOWING THIS MEMORANDUM OF CRL.PETN.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -4-
ORDER
Accused Nos.1 to 10 in Crime No.52/2013 registered
with Halasurgate Women Police Station, Bangalore, within
the jurisdiction of VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore, have come up in this petition seeking quashing
of the said proceedings initiated for the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of Indian Penal
Code as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961, on the basis of the complaint submitted by 2nd
respondent, who is the wife of 1st petitioner (accused
No.1).
2. The fact that 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent
are legally wedded husband and wife respectively and
their marriage took place on 09.08.2009 is not in dispute.
It is also not in dispute that there are differences between
them, which has resulted in 1st petitioner filing a petition
in M.C. No.4049/2012 seeking restitution of conjugal
rights. It is seen that the said proceeding is with reference -5-
to negotiated settlement between the parties way back in
the month of January 2013 and when the matter stood
thus, the complaint is filed by the 2nd respondent on
26.03.2013 alleging the offence of demand of dowry not
only against the 1st petitioner but, also against his family
members.
3. On going through the petition, it is seen that
the 1st petitioner is residing independently from that of the
other members of his family i.e., his parents, his married
sisters and brothers. Though the complaint in detail
refers to various allegations, it is pertinent to note that the
same have been made subsequent to an attempt for
settlement made before the Family Court. In the
circumstances, this Court find that though the
investigation into the alleged offences should go on and
the 1st respondent – Police should file necessary report on
the said complaint, the question of arresting petitioners 2
to 10 for investigation does not arise. Therefore, it is
abundantly made clear that the investigation as against -6-
petitioner Nos.1 to 10, accused Nos.1 to 10, shall go on
pursuant to the complaint filed in Crime No.52/2013,
while doing so, the personal rights and liberties of
petitioner Nos.2 to 10 should not be disturbed. However,
if the Investigating Agency finds it necessary to take the
1st petitioner into custody for investigation, it shall do so
only after seeking prior permission of this Court in that
regard.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition filed by
accused Nos.1 to 10 in Crime No.52/2013 is disposed of
holding that 1st respondent – Police shall go on with the
investigation and file a report within three months from
today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sma
