SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

T L Gopal vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 6 December, 2013

Karnataka High Court T L Gopal vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 6 December, 2013Author: H N Das

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3687/2012

BETWEEN:

1. T.L.GOPAL,

S/O LAKSHMAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

2. T.V.LAKSHMAIAH,

S/O H.VEERAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.

3. JAYAMMA,

W/O T.V.LAKSHMAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

ALL ARE RESIDING AT

VENKATESHA PURA,

SIRAGATE,

TUMKUR TOWN-571202.

4. T.L.SHIVAKUMAR,

S/O T.V.LAKSHMAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

R/O THIMMALAPURA OORUKERE POST, TUMKUR TALUK,

TUMKUR DISTRICT-571202.

5. VASANTHA,

W/O LATE UMESH,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

2

R/O THOTADASALLI, BEHIND SEEBI SWAMY TEMPLE,

GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR (D).

6. T.L.SUSHEELA,

W/O VENUGOPAL,

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

R/O HANUMANTHAPURA,

NEAR BYLANJANEYA TEMPLE, TUMKUR TOWN,

TUMKUR-571212.

7. JYOTHI,

W/O T.N.NAGARAJU,

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

R/O JIGANI BANGALORE

SOUTH, BANGALORE.

8. SHOBA,

W/O N.D.NAGARAJ,

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

R/O VALMIKI NAGAR,

BEHIND Uco BANK,

B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR. … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI D.R.ANANDEESWARA, ADV.)

AND:

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TUMKUR TOWN POLICE,

TUMKUR.

2. HEMALATHA,

D/O SHARADAMMA,

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

R/AT NO.68/A, 9TH MAIN,

10TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE,

SRINIVASA NAGAR,

3

KATHRIGUPPE,

BANASHANKARI,

BANGALORE.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, GP FOR R1 R2 SERVED)

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN CR. NO.44/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) & CJM, TUMKUR.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2.

The petitioner Nos.2 to 8 are the parents, brothers and sisters

of petitioner No.1. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and

respondent No.2 was held on 11.06.2001. On account of

some differences, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are

residing separately from the year 2010. From the year 2011,

there was exchange of notices between the parties with regard

to matrimonial relationship. Finally, petitioner No.1 initiated

proceedings in M.C.No.8/2012 against respondent No.2 for

divorce. The respondent No.2 also initiated proceedings 4

against petitioner No.1 in M.C.No.3080/2012 for restitution

of conjugal rights. These two cases are pending before the

same Court.

2. When the matters stood at that stage, respondent

No.2 lodged a complaint with respondent No.1-police on

28.04.2012 and the same came to be registered in

Cr.No.44/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections

498A and 504 of IPC. Aggrieved by the registration of the

criminal case, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. Despite service of notice, respondent No.2

remained unrepresented.

4. The material on record discloses that respondent

No.2 is residing separately from petitioner No.1 from the year

2010. The exchange of notices between the parties in the year

2011 and 2012 do not specify anything with regard to dowry

demand and any harassment to respondent No.2. It is only an

after thought in the complaint of the respondent No.2. Even

in the complaint, no specific allegations are made against any 5

of the accused. On the other hand a false allegations are

made against the accused. With a malafide intension to

harass the entire family members who are residing separately

from petitioner No.1 are implicated. In the circumstances, I

am of the considered opinion that this is nothing about abuse

of process of law. For the reasons state above, the following:

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings in Cr.No.44/2012 pending on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumkur are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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