1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO.4466/2018
BETWEEN
1. SRI HARENDRA BABU
S/O K. VARADA REDDY
AGED 48 YEARS
R/AT NO.320 A
CLARKS EXORTICA
SWISS TOWN
SADAHALLI VILLAGE
BENGALURU-562 110
2. SMT PUSHPARANI
W/O K VARADA REDDY
AGED 68 YEARS
R/AT NO.644/32
6TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 040
3. SRI V SHANMUGA REDDY
S/O R VARADA REDDY
R/AT NO 446, 2ND CROSS
3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK
BASAWESHWARANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 079 … PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B. RAMESH, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP.BY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
2
POLICE STATION, DEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU-562 110, REP. BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SMT SREEDEVI REDDY
W/O HARENDRA BABU
AGED 47 YEARS
EARLIER R/AT NO.320A
CLARKS EXOTICA
SWISS TOWN, SADANAHALLI
BENGALURU – 560 071
NOW R/AT VILLA NO.18
PRANEETH WESTWOODS
KANCHI GACHIBOWLI ROAD
JOURNALIST COLONY
PHASE-3, GACHIBOWLI
HYDERABAD-500 019
ANDHRA PRADESH … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.61/18
BY THE 1st RESPONDENT BASED ON THE COMPLAINT
LODGED BY THE 2nd RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498A OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the records.
2. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the FIR
in Crime No.61/2018 registered by the respondent –
Police.
3. As could be seen from the FIR, it reveals that
there is a detail allegation against the petitioners as to
what exactly has happened on 11.6.2018. It is
specifically alleged that the petitioners with reference to
dowry, threatened the second respondent with dire
consequences of killing her and caught hold of her hands
and squeezed her neck also pulled her hair and caused
physical and mental ill-treatment to her. Though the
learned counsel tried to convince this court with regard to
the conduct of respondent No.2 that she has played fraud
on various persons and further he has produced several
photographs showing that she actually on that day ill-
treated and harassed the first petitioner.
4
4. Therefore, in this regard, in my opinion, all these
factual aspects have to be thrashed out as to what exactly
happened on that day by means of thorough investigation
by the Investigating Agency. At this stage, when the
allegations made in the complaint constitute some of the
offences, it is not feasible to quash the FIR itself.
5. Under the above said circumstances, in my
opinion, the petition is too premature and it is not
maintainable at this stage. The truth or falsity of the
allegations have to be found out by the Investigating
Officer during the course of investigation.
6. Hence, the Petition is dismissed. However, the
petitioners are at liberty to produce all the documents
which are produced before this court for the assistance of
the Investigating Officer to file appropriate report to the
court. In spite of that, if any adverse report is submitted
by the Police without any basis, the petitioners are at
liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.
5
In view of the dismissal of the petition on merits,
I.A.No.1/2018 filed for stay does not survive for
consideration and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PL*
