SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sandeep Albert Pinto vs State Of Karnataka on 3 April, 2019

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

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 © 2021 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