1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8265/2015
BETWEEN
1. SANDEEP ALBERT PINTO
S/O FREDERICK WILLIAM PINTO,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OPERATIONS ENGINEER,
EMIRATES AIRLINES,
5TH FLOOR, CAR PARK BUILDING,
NEAR DEIRA CLOCK TOWER,
P.O.BOX 1515, DUBAI, U.A.E.
2. PHILOMENA CELINE PINTO
W/O FREDRIC WILLIAM PINTO,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
ALWASL BUILDING NO.446,
MUHAISANAH, 4TH BLOCK
B FLAT NO.322,
MUHAISANAH, DUBAI, UAE.
3. ANUSHKA PINTO
D/O FREDRIC WILLIAM PINTO,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
ALWASL BUILDING NO.446,
MUHAISANAH, 4TH BLOCK
B FLAT NO.322,
MUHAISANAH, DUBAI, UAE.
(DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 15.03.2016)
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHETAN B ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HARIHARA RURAL POLICE STATION
BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KAVOOR POLICE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SHALMA JOYLYN PINTO
W/O SANDEEP ALBERT PINTO,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT “SANDHYA BAGH”
POST KAVOOR,
MANGALORE – 575 015.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1
SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRLIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO (i)QUASH THE ORDER DATED
26.08.2013 PASSED IN PCR NO.118/2013 BY THE
HON’BLE J.M.F.C.(III COURT), MANGALURU, D.K.
(ANNXURE-D) (ii)QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN
CR.NO.181/2013 DATED 24.09.2013 AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE U/S 498(A) OF IPC
AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT (ANNEXURE-A).
(iii)QUASH THE CHARGESHEET IN C.C.NO.123/2015 NOW
PENDING ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.(III COURT),
MANGALURU, D.K. AND ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS
THERETO (ANNEXURE-C).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and learned counsel appearing for
respondents.
2. Charge sheet is laid against the petitioners
for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
(‘the Act’ for short). The matter is now set down for
appearance of the accused before trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that after marriage, the complainant – respondent
No.2 was staying with her husband – accused No.1 in
Dubai. All the instances of the alleged acts were
committed in Dubai. Therefore, the prosecution of the
petitioners without prior permission from the
competent Government as required under Section 188
of Cr.P.C is not maintainable and hence, institution of
the proceedings and trial of the accused is illegal and
an abuse of process of Court.
4
4. On going through the charge sheet, it is
seen that part of the cause of action has arisen within
the jurisdiction of the trial Court. Therefore, the
submission of learned counsel for the petitioners
cannot be accepted at this juncture.
5. Insofar as the incident that is alleged to have
been taken place in Dubai on 03.02.2013, the charge
sheet has not been filed under Section 323 of IPC.
Under the said circumstances, the prosecution has to
proceed only with regard to the charge under Section
498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
According to the prosecution, the alleged acts of
cruelty and dowry demand had taken place during the
stay of respondent No.2 in the matrimonial house
between 12.12.2012 and 27.12.2012 and from
14.02.2013 to 31.03.2013. The trial Court is
therefore well within its jurisdiction to try the above
offence. Hence, the prayer for quashment of the
proceedings is liable to be rejected.
5
6. Since the scope of the trial is limited, the
trial Court is directed to expedite the proceedings and
conclude the trial within an outer limit of six months
from the date of communication of this order.
7. As it is submitted that petitioner No.2 is
presently residing in Dubai along with accused No.1,
the trial Court may consider the request if any made
by accused No.2 for grant of exemption favourably.
Petition is disposed of in terms of the above
order.
SD/-
JUDGE
PYR
