Karnataka High Court Sunita W/O. Siddaramayya M vs The State on 3 June, 2014Author: K.N.Phaneendra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2014 BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100356/2014 BETWEEN:
W/O. SIDDARAMAYYA M
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE
R/O. BENGERI, HUBLI
W/O. MALLIKARJUN TALIKOTI
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE
NOW AT R/O. PRAGATI COLONY,
2ND CROSS, SIRUR PARK,
VIDYA NAGAR, HUBLI
(BY SRI G. N. NARASAMMANAVAR FOR SRI A M MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
1. THE STATE
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SUB -URBAN
P. S. DHARWAD.
W/O. PRAKASH CHANNI
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
C/O. M J PATIL
PLOT NO. 40, V B H COLONY
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF DHARWAD SUB-URBAN CRIME NO.290/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC COURT, DHARWAD.
I.A. NO. 1/2014 IS FILED FOR GRANT OF STAY. THIS PETITION A/W. I.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Learned counsel for the petitioners is absent. Heard Sri G. N. Narasammanavar Advocate on behalf of learned 3
counsel for petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State. Perused the records.
2. This petition is filed by petitioners for quashing the entire proceedings of Dharwad Sub-Urban Crime No.290/2013 pending on the file of the Prl. Civil judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court, Dharwad.
3. In the F.I.R. it has been categorically alleged that on 24.06.2012 the informant – respondent No.2 was given in marriage to one Prakash Channi – accused No.1. Petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4 in the said case. It is alleged that the petitioners are sisters-in-law of respondent No.2. After marriage petitioners, husband of respondent No.2, respondent No.2’s mother-in-law and her sister have started ill-treating respondent No.2 by demanding Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry. All the accused persons have jointly committed the offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is alleged that even though the complainant had conceived for first time the accused 4
persons have continued their harassment. The accused No.1 was sexually harassing his wife at the instigation of petitioners and other accused persons. On the basis of such allegations, police have registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’ for brevity) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the D.P. Act’ for brevity). The investigation is still in progress and it appears that police have not submitted report before the Court. The truth or falsity of complaint averments has to be tested by police by conducting investigation. After conducting investigation police have to submit a report before the Court. At this stage, this Court cannot imagine about the report. If the police submit a ‘B’ report then the matter may come to an end, insofar as these petitioners are concerned. If the learned Magistrate takes cognizance after perusing the charge sheet, if any, then only the cause of action arises to the petitioners to challenge the said 5
proceedings. Therefore, this is a too premature stage to interfere with the investigation. Hence, I am of the opinion that petition deserves to be dismissed. Petitioners are at liberty to approach this Court, if necessary, if any cognizance is taken against them. With these observations, petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of main petition, I.A. No.1/2014 for grant of stay does not survive for consideration. Sd/-