SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

B K Anupa vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2014

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation