Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners (brother- and sister-in-laws) in a dowry harassment case where complaint and charge sheet failed to allege specific overt acts against them, deeming it an abuse of process.
Criminal proceedings in C.C. No.2599/2016 quashed against petitioners-accused Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1737/2018
BETWEEN:
2
SON OF THIRUMALEGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO.1326, SRINIVASA NILAYA VIJAYANAGARA 3RD STAGE, HINKAL MYSORE-570 017
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PALLAVA R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HASSAN IN C.C.NO.2599/2016 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 489(A), 323, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, R/W SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioners who are brother-in-laws and
sister-in- laws of 2nd respondent-complainant are before this Court calling in question the criminal proceeding in C.C. No. 2599/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506, 149 of I.P.C read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
present petition are that, the complainant and one Sri. Bhanuprakash got married on 06.11.2013 at Hassan and later the complainant claims to have developed some differences between in-laws of the husband and her husband. The entire complaint narrates the instances of harassment or otherwise by the husband or the in-laws. Petitioners No.1 and 4 are residing at Mysuru and petitioners No. 2 and 3 are residing at Bengaluru. Though the complainant and her husband did reside at Bengaluru, the petitioners were
4
not residing along with the couple or the in-laws in their house. A perusal of the complaint would clearly indicate that it is an omnibus complaint against the members of the family and what is narrated in the complaint insofar as it is concerned, petitioners are other members of the family and none of the petitioners name is mentioned in the complaint. The complaint reads thus as follows:
"¸Áé«Ä,
£À£Àß «ªÁºÀªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ 6-11-2013gÀAzÀÄ ºÁ¸À£À f¯Éè, ºÉƼɣÀgÀ¹¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÄèPÀÄ, ªÀiÁPÀªÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ ¢ªÀAUÀvÀ zÉêÉà UËqÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ r. ¨sÁ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁ±ï gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ºÁ¸À£ÀzÀ ¨sÁgÀw PÀ¯Áåt ªÀÄAl¥ÀzÀ°è £ÉgÀªÉÃjvÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß ¥Àw r. ¨sÁ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁ±ï, CªÀgÀ vÁ¬ÄAiÀiÁzÀ PÀªÀÄ®ªÀÄä, CªÀgÀ CPÀ̼ÁzÀ gÉÃR, CªÀgÀ CtÚ£ÁzÀ ¸ÀwñÀ r.E., CªÀgÀ CwÛUÉAiÀiÁzÀ gÉÃtÄPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ¨sÁªÀ£ÁzÀ gÀªÉÄñïgÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 180 UÁæA a£Àß, gÀÆ 1,50,000/- £ÀUÀzÀÄ, 2 UÀÄAmÉ ¸ÉÊl£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ §½ MvÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ 4-11-2013gÀAzÀÄ 180 UÁæA a£Àß, gÀÆ 1,50,000/- £ÀUÀzÀÄ, 2 UÀÄAmÉ ¸ÉÊl£ÀÄß ¥Àw r.¨sÁ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁ±À¤UÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ¥ÀwAiÀÄ PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÀ PÀ¯Áåt ªÀÄAl¥ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ¥ÀwAiÀĪÀgÀ PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ºÉ½zÀ CrUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉ ¸ÀäöägÀÄ 30 ®PÀëPÀÄÌ ºÉZÀÄÑ ºÀt PÀZÁðVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß ¥ÀwAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ¥ÀwAiÀÄÄ £ÀA 128/1 ªÁqïð £ÀA 14, 28£Éà CqÀØ gÀ¸ÉÛ, Q¯ÉÆÃð¸ÀÌgï ¯ÉÃOmï£À°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÉݪÀÅ. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è £À£ÀߣÀÄß 3 wAUÀ¼ÀÄUÀ¼À PÁ® £À£Àß
5
¥ÀwAiÀÄÄ ZÉ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. vÀgÀĪÁAiÀÄ £À£Àß ¥Àw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ 3 ®PÀë ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀgÀĪÀAvÉ £À£ÀÄß »A¹¸À®Ä ±ÀÄgÀĪÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ §qÀªÀgÁzÀ PÁgÀt £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß PɼÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÁUÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ, ¨ÉÊzÀÄ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸É PÉÆqÀ®Ä DgÀA©ü¹zÀgÀÄ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ÀߣÀÄß £À£Àß C¥Àà£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À£ÀÄß PÀgɹ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄvÉ ªÀiÁr gÀÆ 1,00,000/- £ÀUÀzÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. DUÀ £À£Àß ¥ÀwAiÀÄÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ 3 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ¼ÉzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß ¥Àw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ G½zÀ 2 ®PÀë ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀgÀĪÀAvÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸É PÉÆqÀ®Ä DgÀA©ü¹zÀgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉýPÉÆAqÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ §qÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä PÉÊAiÀÄ°è ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À §½ ºÉýPÉÆAqÁUÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£ÀÄß ªÀģɬÄAzÀ DZÉ ºÁQ £À£ÀߣÀÄß £À£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ F «ZÁgÀzÀ §UÉÎ ºÁ¸À£ÀzÀ ¸ÀàAzÀ£À «¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ¢£ÁAPÀ 13-3-2015 gÀAzÀÄ MAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ C°èUÉ £À£Àß ¥ÀwAiÀÄÄ ºÁdgÁV ¸ÀàA¢¸ÀzÉ ºÁUÉAiÉÄà ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ £À£Àß ¥ÀwAiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 11-04-2015 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÀàAzÀ£À «¨sÁUÀPÉÌ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤Ãr¢ÝÃAiÀÄ JAzÀÄ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁr £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä AiÀÄwß¹zÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ C°èzÀݪÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß £À£Àß ¥Àw¬ÄAzÀ PÁ¥ÁrzÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀÄAiÀiÁð¢UÉ PÀÄAzÀÄ §gÀ¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À°®è. ¥ÀÄ£ÀB £À£Àß ¥ÀwAiÀÄÄ DUÀ¸ïÖ wAUÀ¼À°è §AzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀàAzÀ£ÀPÉÌ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ E¯Áè JAzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁrwãÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀj¹ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ C°èzÀݪÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß £À£Àß ¥Àw¬ÄAzÀ PÁ¥ÁrzÀgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj «ZÁgÀªÁV £Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 12-08-2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä §½ MAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÉÝ. ¸ÀzÀj zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ £À£ÀUÉ £À£Àß ¥Àw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀqÉAiÀĪÀjAzÀ gÀPÀëuÉ PÉÆr¸À¨ÉÃPÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
6
£À£Àß ¥Àw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁV ¤ªÀÄä°è ¥ÁæxÀð£É. "
None of the names of the petitioners figures in the
complaint as it seen in the aforesaid extracted complaint. The police after investigation have also filed the charge sheet. The charge sheet at Column No. 17 reads as follows:
"17. PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±À
PÀ®A 4998(J), 323, 504, 506 gÉ/« 149 L.¦.¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 & 4 r.¦ DPïÖ:-
¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ FUÉÎ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2.1/2 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 06-11-2013 gÀAzÀÄ ºÁ¸À£À £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¨sÁgÀw PÀ¯Áåt ªÀÄAl¥ÀzÀ°è UÀÄgÀÄ»jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ 1,50,000/- gÀÆ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀt , ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀjUÉ 180 UÁæA a£ÁߨsÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁV PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ 3 wAUÀ¼ÀÄUÀ¼À PÁ® C£ÉÆåãÀåªÁVzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ PÁ®A £ÀA:12 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÁzÀ - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë - 1 gÀªÀjUÉ ¤ªÀÄä vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ E£ÀÄß ºÉaÑUÉ 3 ®PÀë gÀÆ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀgÀzÀPÀëuÉAiÀiÁV vÀgÀĪÀAvÉ ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀAvÉ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ, ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ, ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀAvÉ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÀiÁr, ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀjUÉ 1,00,000/- gÀÆ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ DgÉÆæ -1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ G½zÀ 2 ®PÀë gÀÆ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀgÀzÀPÀëuÉAiÀiÁV vÀgÀĪÀAvÉ
7
¥ÀÄ£ÀB ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr ªÀģɬÄAzÀ DZÉ £ÀÆQ vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ »A¸É QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝ §UÉÎ ºÁ¸À£À ¸ÀéAzÀ£ÀPÉÌ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹, ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 11-04-2015 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀéAzÀ£ÀPÉÌ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖ¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ PÉʤAzÀ ªÉÄÊPÉÊUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ £ÉÆêÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁr ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀzÉà ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ PÉÆ¯É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ, ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸É QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zsÀÈqÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÉÛ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®A jÃvÁå DgÉÆæUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÛ."
8
against the petitioners. As stated hereinabove, the petitioners do not reside with the family of the complainant and no doubt they are brother-in-laws and sister-in-laws of the complainant. But, they having not resided with the family of the complainant, making any particular allegations against the petitioners and the charge sheet also not particularly pointed out any action against the petitioners, if criminal trial is let to continue against the petitioners on afore extracted complaint or the charge sheet, it will undoubtedly lead to miscarriage of the justice and an abuse of process of
law. Therefore, on the ground the complaint does not show any offences nor the charge sheet would do the same, the criminal proceedings deserves to be quashed.
9
against the husband. On such omnibus complaint or the charge sheet, trial against the petitioners who are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant who admittedly did not reside with the complainant or her husband or even with the family of the complainant, if criminal trial is permitted to continue against the petitioners it would degenerate into harassment and be an abuse of the process of law resulting in miscarriage of justice.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1 has held that if no overt act or particularization of offences is alleged against family members, there can be no justification for continuation of trial. This principle is again reiterated
by the Apex Court in SEENIVASAN v. STATE2 . It is germane to notice the judgment of this Court in ASMA
1 (2019) 4 SCC 615
2 (2009) 8 SCC 642
10
KHANUM @ NOOR ASMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA3
wherein this Court holds as follows:
“15. In the case on hand, a careful reading of the complaint averments and the charge sheet materials clearly go to show that an attempt is made to implicate all the immediate relatives of the husband with an oblique motive. No specific averments are made as against the petitioners with regard to their role played in respect of the alleged acts. No reference is given with regard to any specific incidents wherein the petitioners have actively participated. The complainant has only made sweeping allegations against petitioners……
17. The learned Magistrates while taking cognizance of the criminal offences arising out of marriage dispute are required to be cautious especially when an attempt is made to falsely implicate the relatives of the husband without even there being any specific allegation as against them in the
3 (2020) 6 Kant.L.J 90
11
compliant only when an intention to coerce and harass the husband and his relatives. The provisions of law introduced by the legislature for protecting the weaker section should be used as a shield and not as a weapon. The judiciary in cases of misuse of such provisions of law, is required to intervene, otherwise, it may have an adverse effect in a longer run.”
In the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court
and that of this Court, I am of the considered view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the brother-in-laws and sister-in-laws who are accused Nos 3 to 6 would result in abuse of the process of law.
O R D E R
i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. The criminal proceedings against the petitioners pending on the file of IV
12
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan in C.C. No. 2599/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 323, 504, 506, 149 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is hereby quashed in so far as petitioners-accused Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 are concerned.
Sd/JUDGE
UN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings should be quashed against brother-in-laws and sister-in-laws who are not named in the complaint or charge sheet.
Whether continuation of trial on omnibus allegations against relatives not residing with the complainant amounts to abuse of process of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tarbez Khan v. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶53
TARBEZ KHAN v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Seenivasan v. StateReferred¶54
SEENIVASAN v. STATE
Asma Khanum v. State of KarnatakaApplied¶59
ASMA KHANUM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2020) 6 Kant.L.J 90
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT. REKHA KUMARI
SRI. SATHISHA D.E
SMT. RENUKA
SRI. RAMESHA
STATE OF KARNATAKA
SMT. SUKANYA P.D.
M. NAGAPRASANNA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
