SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nandini vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.872 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

NANDINI
W/O KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
KABBALIGERE VILLAGE
KONANUR HOBLI
ARKALGUDU TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 102

PERMANENT RESIDENT OF:
CHIKKAMAGGE
DODDAMAGGE HOBLI POST
ARKALGUDU TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 102
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI RAVIKUMAR N.R., ADV.,)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KONANUR PS
ARKALGUDU TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE
2

2. SUNITHA
W/O GIRISH
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
R/AT KABBALLIGERE VILLAGE
KONNANUR HOBLI
ARKALGUD TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 102
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SANDESH J CHOUTA, SPP II FOR R1;
SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADV., FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.439/2016 ON THE
FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARAKALGUD,
HASSAN AND THE CHARGE SHEET FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498A, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC R/W SECTIONS 3, 4
OF D.P. ACT AT ANNEXURE – C AND D TO THE
PETITION IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the

materials available on record.

2. It is the fundamental basic concept of the

criminal jurisprudence, that if reading of the

complaint and other materials available on record or
3

if any charge sheet is filed, after going through the

charge sheet, if the Court finds that there are no

allegations which are sufficient to constitute any

such offences alleged, investigation or the proceeding

cannot be continued, the same is liable to be

quashed. With this basic principle, I have examined

the materials on record.

3. The second respondent in this case

Smt.Sunitha has lodged a complaint before the first

respondent – police, making allegations that she was

given in marriage to accused No.1 by name Girisha.

At that time, said Girisha and his family members

have demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- as dowry

and also taken that amount and 50 grams of gold.

For about 7 to 8 months, husband and wife were

living together happily with each other. Thereafter, it

is further alleged that, Girisha and his family

members started demanding dowry. In this context,

it is alleged that said Girisha, his mother and others
4

were abused her and assaulted her. In this context,

it is also further stated that she consumed

insecticides once and she was rescued by her

husband. It is further alleged that the petitioner who

is arraigned as accused No.6 who was the resident of

the same village and some other villagers had also

come to the house and told the complainant to

remove her mangalya and go back to her parental

house. Except this one sentence, there is no other

allegation made against the petitioner as such. The

charge sheet papers disclose the description of

accused No.6. It is categorically stated that she is the

wife of one Kalegowda and permanent resident of

Chikkamagge village, Doddamagge Hobli in

Arkalgudu Taluk, Hassan district. The police have

also invoked the provisions under Sections 498A and

504 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act.

5

4. As I have noted, except the above said one

sentence, no other allegations are available, so as to

constitute any offences under Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act or under Sections 498A and

504 of IPC. Therefore, even translating the entire

charge sheet materials in the evidence at this stage

there is absolutely no material to connect this

petitioner to attract the above said offences.

5. Hence, I have no hesitation to allow this

petition, sofar as this petitioner is concerned. Hence,

I proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

i) Petition is allowed.

ii) The case in CC No.439/2016 on the file of

the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC.,

Arkalgudu for the offences under Sections

498A and 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC and

also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
6

Act, 1961 and all further proceedings therein

are quashed sofar as this petitioner is

concerned.

Sd/-

JUDGE
GH

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh