COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA…
Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000 recoverable as a fine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DATED THIS THE I 4F DAY OF JUNE 2012
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR..JLSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8506/2010
BETWEEN
PRABHU S/O ASHOK HADLI AGE:39 YEARS
OCC:SOVTWARE ENGINEER
R/ 0: NO.55. SHARADA APARTMENTS
SHARADA COLONY. BASAY ESHWARA N AGAR BANGALORE,NOW AT NO,4775,KILCARY CT APT.D GOVERNORS SQ.COLUMBUS OH.432320-3278
PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASI I YELL ADV.)
AND
ij
DEVANAHALLI-560 300 BAN GALORE INTERNATI ONAL AIRPORT
RESPONDENTS
SRI R. S. LAGALI. ADV. FOR R2, R3 SERVED.) (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR. HCGP FOR Ri,
HONBLE THE OFFENCES CR.P.C PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE BIJAPUR. THE COURT THE OF OF J.M.F.C COURT FOR THIS ENTIRE PETITIONER CRL.P PLEASED FILED PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS PUNISHADLE U/S 498(A). 323. 504. 506 R/\V 149 OF 1PC. ADVOCATE FOR TI-IE BE TO QUASH AGAINST CONTINUATION CRIMINAL INITIATION AND ON THE FILE 1ST BY MAY IN U/S.482 OF’ C.C.NO.1627/07 (P.C.NO.45/07),
THIS DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: TI uS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
ORDER
filed 498(A). 323. 504. 506 R/w. Sec. 149 of IPC. has a against the respondent petitioner U/Ss, second complaint committing The for offence
3
at the time of marriage, dowry demanded was paid. Nlnganagouda and etc., were present. It Is stated that, relatives of the complainant and elders Ravindra Gouda, Rs.1,75,000/- and 10 tolas of gold has been given as dowry to the petitioner. In the said discussion, the
the mother-in-law, sisters-In-law and brother-In-law the money is not paid, the complainant should not came and they used to insist the petitioner to get Rs.2,00,000/sisters-in-law were frequently visiting at Bangalore and to their house and also gave threat to the life. brother-In-law demanded money and stated to the complainant that if The complaint further states that after the The marriage, petitioner was working as an Engineer at along with Hanmanth Reddy came to the house and Bangalore. The complainant and petitioner stayed at Bangalore. mother-in-law, from her parents. The accused were giving physical and At that 3. nentacruelty. It is further stated that on 11.02.2007,
4
advised the said accused. time, the elders like Ravindra Patil and Narayan Badiger
effective reasons, the complaint is liable to be quashed. for 4. He It is that TAMIL NADU. instituted stated present in India and he has been falsely implicated for further attended the contention of the petitioner that he went to America reasons. the the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court an reported in (2010) criminal ulterior wreaking due inductive allegations in the complaint are false. manifestly vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cr1) 1349 in proceeding The counsel for where maliciously with a malafide proceeding The complaint is lodged on 06.03.2007. with on 21.06.2006 and that as on 11.02.2007. he was not motive is the case of SUNDER BABU AIVD OTHERS V. STATE OF or to private and personal grudge and any other In the said decision, it is held that where is
U
5
Prohibition Act. The averment in the complaint also after Though the India disclose that when the petitioner and other accused fact case, Herein received dowry and that therefore, he would not be liable for charge for the offence U/Ss.3 and 4 of Dowry was in police on in of marriage he that 5. has been falsely implicated because the averment in the Rs.2,00,000/-. the the complainant was subjected to mental and physical the as complaint disclose that at the time this not cruelty and there was insistence for additional dowry of investigation have filed the chai-ge sheet. petitioner 11.02.2007 and it is not a circumstance to show that he stayed together at Bangalore, before he left to America,
These allegations indict the The contention raised by the petitioner is The petition is filed without any facie a matter of evidence. 6. that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the case is prima petitioner. proper legal and valid basis. The filing of petition is clear
6
•
abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the petition Is dIsmissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-. The cost to be
recovered as a fine.
JUDGE sd/s
Srt
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Criminal Petition No. 8506/2010 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash proceedings under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Rule 149 Cr.P.C. is maintainable or is an abuse of process of l
Prabu s/o Ashok
Priya w/o Prabhu
State of Karnataka
K.Sreedhar Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
