IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8265/2015 BETWEEN 1. SANDEEP ALBERT PINTO S/O FREDERICK WILLIAM PINTO, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OPERATIONS ENGINEER, EMIRATES AIRLINES, 5TH FLOOR, CAR PARK BUILDING, NEAR DEIRA CLOCK TOWER, P.O.BOX 1515, DUBAI, U.A.E.
2. PHILOMENA CELINE PINTO W/O FREDRIC WILLIAM PINTO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, ALWASL BUILDING NO.446, MUHAISANAH, 4TH BLOCK B FLAT NO.322, MUHAISANAH, DUBAI, UAE.
3. ANUSHKA PINTO D/O FREDRIC WILLIAM PINTO, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALWASL BUILDING NO.446, MUHAISANAH, 4TH BLOCK B FLAT NO.322, MUHAISANAH, DUBAI, UAE.
(DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 15.03.2016) ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHETAN B ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HARIHARA RURAL POLICE STATION BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KAVOOR POLICE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SHALMA JOYLYN PINTO W/O SANDEEP ALBERT PINTO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT “SANDHYA BAGH” POST KAVOOR, MANGALORE - 575 015.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRLIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO (i)QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2013 PASSED IN PCR NO.118/2013 BY THE HON'BLE J.M.F.C.(III COURT), MANGALURU, D.K. (ANNXURE-D) (ii)QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.181/2013 DATED 24.09.2013 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE U/S 498(A) OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT (ANNEXURE-A). (iii)QUASH THE CHARGESHEET IN C.C.NO.123/2015 NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.(III COURT), MANGALURU, D.K. AND ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS THERETO (ANNEXURE-C).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondents.
2. Charge sheet is laid against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). The matter is now set down for appearance of the accused before trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after marriage, the complainant – respondent No.2 was staying with her husband – accused No.1 in Dubai. All the instances of the alleged acts were committed in Dubai. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners without prior permission from the competent Government as required under Section 188 of Cr.P.C is not maintainable and hence, institution of the proceedings and trial of the accused is illegal and an abuse of process of Court.
4. On going through the charge sheet, it is seen that part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted at this juncture.
5. Insofar as the incident that is alleged to have been taken place in Dubai on 03.02.2013, the charge sheet has not been filed under Section 323 of IPC. Under the said circumstances, the prosecution has to proceed only with regard to the charge under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. According to the prosecution, the alleged acts of cruelty and dowry demand had taken place during the stay of respondent No.2 in the matrimonial house between 12.12.2012 and 27.12.2012 and from 14.02.2013 to 31.03.2013. The trial Court is therefore well within its jurisdiction to try the above offence. Hence, the prayer for quashment of the proceedings is liable to be rejected.
6. Since the scope of the trial is limited, the trial Court is directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial within an outer limit of six months from the date of communication of this order.
7. As it is submitted that petitioner No.2 is presently residing in Dubai along with accused No.1, the trial Court may consider the request if any made by accused No.2 for grant of exemption favourably.
Petition is disposed of in terms of the above order.
SD/-
JUDGE PYR