Mr Anusha Shyam Vs State of Karnataka

MR. ANUSHA SHYAM W/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.4-948-,5, PANDURANGA, VIDHYANAGARA, NEAR PATHRAO HOSPITAL, PUTTUR, DARBE – 574 202.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SACHIN B S.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA STATION HOUSE OFFICER, UDUPI WOMEN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 01.

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA WOMEN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 01

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20780 WP No. 4923 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT 08.12.2022 IN CRIME NO.45 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST. AS PER ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY , ISSUE NECESSARY DIRECTION TO RE TRANSFER THE CASE IN CRIME NO.45/2022 TO THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is by the complainant, challenging the order dated 08.12.2022, in Cr.No.45/2022 of Puttur PS transferring the said case to Udupi police station.

¶26

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20780 WP No. 4923 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

It is the case of the complainant that accused

¶30

No.1 is her husband, accused No.2 is her mother-in-law, accused No.3 is grandmother of accused No.1, accused No.4 is the son of accused No.3 and accused Nos.5 and 6

¶31

are the sister-in-law of complainant. Her marriage with accused No.1 Yatish Naik was performed on 29.11.2015. After the marriage she lived with him at MGM Archana Arcade, Khunjibettu. During the marriage her parents gave 20 Tola of Gold to her and a bracelet worth 13.940 grams to accused No.1. Through their wedlock, they are having a son.

¶32

3.1 In the complaint, the complainant has made serious allegations against all the accused persons and that after she went to her parental home for delivery, accused persons did not tried to get her back. Complainant filed the complaint with the Women Police Station Puttur.

¶33

It is registered in Cr.No.45/2022 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act ('DP

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20780 WP No. 4923 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Act' for short). However, the said police station have transferred the case to Women police station, Udupi on the point of jurisdiction after securing permission from the Court. It is being challenged by the complainant on the

¶37

following amongst other

¶38

GROUNDS

¶39

The order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the trial Court is illegal and without any restriction.

¶40

The concerned police on the basis of pressure exerted by accused No.1 have arbitrarily proceeded to file requisition to the trial Court to grant permission.

¶41

The complainant and accused No.1 are residing within the jurisdiction of Puttur Court since 2017. Earlier complainant had filed complaint before the Women's police station, Puttur. Without application of mind and only on the basis of requisition given by the concerned police, the trial Court has granted permission and hence the petition.

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:20780 WP No. 4923 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

In support of the petition, the learned counsel for

¶46

complainant has relied upon the following decisions:

¶47

(i) Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. ( Rupali Devi )¹

¶48

(ii) K.A.Priyanka Vs. Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi and Ors. ( K.A.Priyanka )²

¶49

On the other hand, learned, High Government

¶50

Pleader representing the respondents submit that after the marriage, since the complainant stayed with husband and other accused persons at Udupi, the Udupi police are having jurisdiction to investigate the matter and therefore rightly on the request of the investigating officer, the trial Court has granted permission and pray to reject the petition.

¶51

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶52

The undisputed facts are that the marriage of complainant and accused No.1 was performed on

¶53

1 (2019) 5 SCC 384

¶54

2 W.P.No.226407/2020 Dt: 25.09.2020

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:20780 WP No. 4923 of 2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

29.11.2015 at Puttur. After the marriage, she stayed in

¶59

her matrimonial home along with the accused persons. She has made serious allegations against all the accused persons. She has stayed in the matrimonial home till 04.09.2016. After the birth of their son and naming ceremony, though she was taken to the matrimonial home, after sometime once again she was thrown out and since then she is staying in her parental home. She has also alleged that when she started going to college, it was objected by the accused persons and threat was given to her. Before the present complaint, she has given complaint dated 06.10.2017 and after summoning accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 6 and husband of accused No.6, the concerned police has taken undertaking from them. However, the harassment did not stop and therefore she has filed the present complaint.

¶60

Perusal of the complaint clearly indicates that several incidences have taken place when the complainant was living with the accused persons in the matrimonial

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20780 WP No. 4923 of 2023

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

home and after she left the matrimonial home and stayed in her parental home also, it is alleged that the accused persons harassed and troubled her. Therefore, the Women's Police Station, Puttur wherein she has given complaint is having jurisdiction to investigate the allegations and if found true to file charge sheet. However, for reasons best known, the Puttur police have given requisition to the trial Court to permit them to transfer the investigation to Udupi PS.

¶64

As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rupali Devi , referred to supra the Puttur police is also having jurisdiction to investigate the allegations made in the complaint. The grievance of complainant is that the accused persons are very powerful and if the investigation is conducted by Udupi police, then they may influence the concerned police and it may prejudice her. Moreover, she is also apprehensive that for the purpose of investigation and giving evidence, she is required to appear before the concerned police and Court at Udupi and it may not be

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20780 WP No. 4923 of 2023

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

safe for her. When the Puttur police are having the jurisdiction to investigate, there was no justification for them to seek transfer of the case to Udupi police.

¶68

In the light of above facts and circumstances,

¶69

the complainant is justified in challenging the order in question. In the result the petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

(i) Petition filed by the complainant under

¶72

Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.

¶73

(ii) The impugned order dated 08.12.2022 in Cr.No.45/2022 on the file of Court of Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada District is hereby quashed.

¶74