Dismissed

Smt B v. Veena v Sri Shyam

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2023CRL.P/833/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka considered a petition under Section 407 Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of a criminal case from Mysuru to Bengaluru, citing the petitioner's health issues and pending civil suits. The Court rejected the transfer, noting that only one appearance for evidence is needed. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petition for transfer of the criminal case from JMFC Mysuru to ACMM Bengaluru under Section 407 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Smt B v Veena Vs Sri Shyam — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 833 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 833 OF 2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SMT B V VEENA WIFE OF SHYAM, DAUGHTER OF VEERABADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8, F STREET, 1ST MAIN ROAD, HOSAGUDDAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE SOUTH, GOVERNMENT ELECTRIC FACTORY, BENGALURU-560 260.

¶11

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA G., ADVOCATE)

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI SHYAM SON OF PARASHU MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 36, 3RD STAGE, KANAKADASA NAGARA, DATTAGALLI, MYSURU.

¶15

AND AT SRI. SHYAM, SON OF PARASHU MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO. 120/1, 8^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, B.M. SREENAGAR, METAGALLI, MYSORE.

¶16

AND ALSO AT SOMANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶17

¶18

CRL.P No. 833 of 2021

¶19

BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.407 CR.P.C PRAYING TO TRANSFER PCR.NO.695/2018 AND C.C.NO.177/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE RESPONDENT PENDING BEFORE THE IV JMFC, MYSURU TO THE A.C.M.M. COURT, BANGALORE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed seeking transfer of

¶26

PCR.No.695/2018 (C.C.No.1979/2020) pending on the file of 5^th JMFC, Mysuru to ACMM Court, Bengaluru City. The said case is filed against the respondent and three others for offence punishable under Sections 494 and 420 read with 34 of IPC.

¶27

It is submitted that the names of other accused have

¶28

been deleted while taking cognizance and the said order was challenged by the petitioner in CRL.R.P.No.32/2021 and the said petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2022.

¶29

3 - CRL.P No. 833 of 2021

¶30

The petition averments are that, the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 17.05.2011. The petitioner was married earlier and has two children. After obtaining a decree of divorce on 21.06.2018, the marriage of the petitioner was performed with the respondent. It is alleged that respondent is now having a bigamous relationship with petitioner's sister. Petitioner has also lodged a complaint with the Byatarayanapura Police Station, Bengaluru, against the respondent alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 & 506 of IPC and the police have registered a case in Cr.No.346/2017. On 09.01.2020, when the petitioner had been to Mysuru for attending the said case, the respondent and his friends attacked her and therefore the petitioner filed a complaint at Vijayanagar Police Station, Mysuru and in this regard, the police have issued an acknowledgment dated 09.01.2020 vide Annexure - C.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in a position to go to Mysuru to attend the present case and she is unemployed and has heart problem and therefore, cannot travel frequently to Mysuru. He further submitted that, O.S.No.4891/2022 filed by the petitioner

¶32

¶33

CRL.P No. 833 of 2021

¶34

against the respondent and another and Crl.Misc.No.727/2017 filed by the petitioner against the respondent seeking maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., are pending in Bengaluru. He therefore seeks to transfer the present case from Mysuru to Bengaluru.

¶35

The learned counsel for respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner contending that the present case is pending for the last five years and the matter is set down for recording of evidence of complainant. He submits, petitioner need not be present before the Court on every hearing date and she may have to appear once for giving the evidence. He submits that one more suit in O.S.No.93/2018 is filed by the petitioner in Gundlupet. He submits that a false complaint was filed by the petitioner stating that respondent and another tried to threaten her, just to put pressure on the respondent. He therefore prays to reject the petition.

¶36

According to the petitioner there are two more cases filed by her, which are pending in Bengaluru. It is also averred that in the month of January, 2020, the petitioner was threatened by the respondent while she was returning from Mysuru to

¶37

¶38

CRL.P No. 833 of 2021

¶39

Bengaluru. On these grounds, the petitioner has sought for transfer of the case from Mysuru Court to ACMM Court, Bengaluru.

¶40

In so far as allegations of threat etc., by the respondent and another is concerned, the police have issued an endorsement since the said offence alleged to have been committed is non-cognizable in nature. No case has been registered against the respondent and the petitioner has not filed any complaint subsequent to the registration of NCR.

¶41

It is not in dispute that the suit claiming damages filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.4891/2022 is pending in Bengaluru and another case filed by the petitioner seeking maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is also pending before the Family Court, Bengaluru. However, one more suit filed by the petitioner, is pending at Gundlupet, Chamarajanagara District. In the case on hand, the complaint is filed by the petitioner before the Court of JMFC at Mysuru alleging offences punishable under Sections 494, 420 of IPC. The complaint is filed in the year 2018. Admittedly, the case is set down for evidence of the complainant. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for

¶42

¶43

CRL.P No. 833 of 2021

¶44

respondent, the complainant has to appear before the Court to give her evidence and she need not frequently appear before the Court. Hence, the case pending before the Court in Mysore need not be transferred to Bangalore at this stage. No grounds are made out to allow the petition. Hence, the petition is

¶45

dismissed .

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Smt B v. Veena v Sri Shyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt B v. Veena v Sri Shyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Vs State of Karnataka

Varun a Vs State by

Sri. Hemantha @ Hemanth Kumar. T. N. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Susheela W/O. Irappa Kumbar a Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Manju @ Karehidli Vs the State by

Janatha Seva Co. Operative Bank Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka