Petitioner sought transfer of dowry death investigation to CBI. Court refused direct reinvestigation, directing approach to Magistrate Court to file protest against criminal report and examine expert witnesses before re-approaching court.
Liberty to examine witnesses and approach the Court again if prima facie case established.
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 25th DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.8137 OF 2017(GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K S KRISHNA SHETTY, S/O LATE SRINIVAS SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/A NALA ROAD, KAVERINAGAR II STAGE, NEAR SRIRAMNAGAR, BEHIND CHANDRADARSHANA, KALYANA MANTAPPA, MANDYA CITY - 571 401.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJU P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
RAJAGOPALANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 058.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M, AGA FOR R1-R4; SRI. P PRASANNA KUMAR, SPP FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE PRESENT PENDING INVESTIGATION IN RESPECT OF CRIME NO.0096/2017 REGISTERED BY THE R-4 POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC.498-A, 302 R/W SEC.34 OF INIDAN PENAL CODE TO THE R-5/CBI FOR CONTINUING AND COMPLETING THE FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THE AFORESAID CRIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES REQUIRED UNDER LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP ON THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned SPP for respondent No.5.
2. Petitioner is before this Court seeking a
direction to the fourth respondent to transfer the present pending investigation, of the case in Crime No.0096/2017 to the fifth respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation.
3
accused No.1 was fixed on 28.06.2007 and one month prior to the said function, he demanded his wife to bring additional dowry, but, petitioner not being able to arrange the sums demanded, he paid a lesser amount. On the date of incident, i.e., on 03.05.2012, at about 9.15 p.m., petitioner received a phone call from accused No.1 stating that his daughter has committed suicide by hanging herself. Petitioner is of the opinion that her death is because
4
of hanging is incorrect as the Hyoid Bone and Thyroid Cartilage are found intact and that if it was death by hanging, the said Hyoid Bone and Thyroid Cartilage could have been damaged or broken and also in view of other circumstantial factors, as petitioner strongly suspects the death of his daughter to be a murder and not a case of suicide.
“ Asphyxia as a result of hanging ”. Post Mortem Report is produced as Annexure-E2 to the petition and it has been recorded that Hyoid Bone and Thyroid Cartilage are intact and hence the issue raised by the petitioner as to the recording cause of death as a suicide and what has been recorded as death is due to Asphyxia as a result of hanging, which has resulted into filing of B Report on 04.05.2012 and notice is issued to the petitioner.
5
6. Admittedly, as to whether Hyoid Bone
and Thyroid Cartilage would suffer any damage if the death was by hanging or otherwise, would be intact, is a factual aspect and which opinion has to be rendered by an expert. Neither the petitioner nor this Court are experts with knowledge that would be suffice to order or make statement or give opinion regarding this fact. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the instant writ petition be disposed off by directing the petitioner to approach the Magistrate Court and file his objection or protest petition to the “B” Report and if already filed, examine such witnesses who are qualified to make a statement to the effect or in support of the case canvassed by the petitioner. In the event, the statement or such evidence is placed and if such evidence stands the rigor of crossexamination and Jurisdictional Trial Court considers and records the same, then it is open to the petitioner to once again approach this Court and seek relief on a similar cause of action. In the
6
absence of establishment of factual aspects of the matter and so long as the final opinion remains, it may not be appropriate to direct reinvestigation in the matter.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed off granting liberty to the petitioner to examine such witnesses or expert as he deems it necessary before the jurisdictional court and if the case of the petitioner or the allegations of the petitioner are prima facie established, then it is open for him to approach this Court and seek similar relief as prayed for in the writ petition.
Ordered accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Sd/JUDGE
Bsv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Criminal Investigation against alleged dowry death should be transferred to CBI.
Whether petitioner is entitled to direct reinvestigation before approach to Magistrate Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. K S Krishna Shetty
State of Karnataka
G. Narendra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
