IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9490/2017 BETWEEN 1. AJAY KUMAR SINGH S/O. RAM AVATAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. TARKESHWAR KUMAR S/O. AJAY KUMAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 3. SHANTI DEVI W/O. AJAY KUMAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O. CHATAUNA VILLAGE, NOKHA, POST ROHTAS, BIHAR 821 115.
(BY SRI. S B HALLI, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION YASHWANTHAPURA SUB-DIV, BENGALURU CITY 562 130.
2. ASHA KUMARI CHOUDHARY W/O GUPTESHWAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O #22, 3RD FLOOR, C/O. NARASIMHA MOORTHY, TARABANAHALLI, ... PETITIONERS CHIKKABANAVAR-POST BENGALURU 560090.
(BY SRI. S. T. NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. S. S. MAHENDRA, ADV. FOR R2) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT/ SOLADEVENAHALLI POLICE STATION, YESHWANTHPURA SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.7861/2017 ON THE FILE OF C.J.M. RURUAL COURT, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 354A, 323, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ALSO U/S 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners who are arraigned as accused in C.C.No.7861/2017 registered by Soladevanahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, are before this Court for quashing of said proceeding.
2. Having heard Sri. S. B. Halli, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri. S. T. Naik, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 / State and Sri. S. S. Mahendra, learned counsel for respondent No.2, this Court finds that this is not a fit case, where exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction is called for, inasmuch as a plain reading of complaint and charge sheet material would disclose offences alleged.
3. Any opinion expressed at this stage on statements of witnesses recorded by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation would definitely prejudice the rights of ether of parties. Hence, without embarking upon conducting a mini trial, this Court is of considered opinion that this not a fit case for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings against petitioners who are parents-in-law and brother- in-law of complainant against whom substantial allegations have been made in complaint by 2nd respondent – complainant.
4. Hence, for the reasons aforestated, I find no good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, same is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of main matter, I.A.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, same is also dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE VP