Karnataka High Court Sri Udaykumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 January, 2014Author: H N Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS CRIMINAL PETITION NO.295/2011 BETWEEN:
S/O. LATE KRISHNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ‘SRI LAKSHMI’, MARAVANTE VILLAGE,
(BY SRI U.S.YOGESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY GANGOLLI
2. SMT. LATHA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PWD NURSE QUARTERS, # 8/373, PANCHAYAT ROAD,
VODER HOBLI VILLAGE,
KUNDAPUR- 576 201.
(BY SRI B.J.ESWARAPPA, GP FOR R1, R2 SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN C.C.NO.1364/07 LATER SPLIT UP INTO C.C.NO.678/09 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.C.J. (JR.DN.) & JMFC, KUNDAPURA AND THE ENTIRE CRL. PROCEEDIGNS AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
The second respondent filed a private complaint in PCR No.180/2007 against the petitioner and four others for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506(2) and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Jurisdictional Magistrate referred the matter for investigation to the first respondent-police and the same came to be registered in Cr.No.0049/2007. After investigation, charge sheet is filed. Being aggrieved by the 3
initiation of the criminal proceedings, the petitioner is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
2. Despite service of notice, the second respondent remained unrepresented.
3. The petitioner’s brother by name Madhav Kumar married the second respondent. On account of some differences, the second respondent and her husband are residing separately. A private complaint was filed implicating the petitioner as accused No.4. A perusal of the complaint and the charge sheet specifies that vague allegations are made against this petitioner. There are no specific allegations implicating the petitioner in the offence. Even if the investigating material is accepted as true, then no case is made out against the petitioner. In order to harass the family member of the husband of the second respondent, all the relatives including the petitioner are implicated in the 4
case. This is nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the following: ORDER
i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1364/2007 later split up into C.C.No.678/2009 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C, Kundapura are hereby quashed. Sd/-