IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOs.37829-37830 OF 2016 (GM – RES) BETWEEN SMT. HEMASHREE B.M W/O V.MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS PERMANENT R/O NO.97 BEHIND POST OFFICE, IB ROAD GUDIBANDE TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 101 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.RAMESH, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANASAWADI POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION MYSORE – 570 001 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001 3. SRI.V.MANJUNATHA S/O SRI.VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.15, 2ND B MAIN ROAD AJJA MALLAPPA LAYOUT ST.THOMAS POST KACHARAKANAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 084 PERMANENT R/O NO.36, 7TH BLOCK JSS LAYOUT, MYSORE TOWN MYSORE – 570 001 4. SRI. VENKATARAMAIAH S/O LATE MUTHUNAYAK AGED 68 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.36, 7TH BLOCK JSS LAYOUT, MYSORE TOWN MYSORE – 570 001 5. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.36, 7TH BLOCK JSS LAYOUT, MYSORE TOWN MYSORE – 570 001 6. SMT. MANJULA W/O NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.93, 7TH CROSS LALITHMAHAL NAGAR MYSORE – 570 001 7. SMT. MAMATHA W/O ASHOK KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.14, 10TH CROSS NANJAPPA LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA BANGALORE – 560 097 8. SMT.V. MALINI W/O KIRAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.42, 1ST MAIN COLLEGE TEACHERS COLONY BSK 1ST STAGE BANGALORE – 560 078 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. L.P. SURESH, ADV., FOR R3;
R4, R5 AND R6 ARE SERVED;
R7 SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 31.07.2017.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XI ACMM AT BANGALORE IN CRIME NO.728/2014 AT ANNEXURE – L AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 01.07.2016 ISSUED BY R-2 POLICE VIDE ANNEXURE – M AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Sri. B Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. S Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for State. Perused records.
2. By consent of learned counsel appearing for both parties, these petitions are disposed of, though they are listed for orders.
3. Petitioner got married to third respondent herein on 12.02.2014 at Chikkaballapur and on account of third respondent- husband being permanent resident of Mysuru, she is said to have proceeded to her matrimonial home after marriage and has found out that her husband-third respondent is an alcoholic and was coming late at night and when enquired she came to know that he was already married to one Smt. Mamatha and had obtained divorce from her and by suppressing this fact, he had married the petitioner. It was also alleged by her that she was harassed for dowry at her matrimonial home by respondents 3 to 8. She further states that she was brought to her parental home and was not taken back to matrimonial home and on enquiry, she found out that he was residing with one Megha at Bengaluru and when enquired, he had assaulted her and as such, she sought for suitable action being taken against respondents, by lodging a complaint on 23.12.2014, Annexure-A. Jurisdictional police station viz., Banasawadi Police Station registered the said complaint in Cr.No.728/2014 for offences punishable under Sections 506 and 498-A and 420 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 against respondents.
4. During the course of investigation, it was noticed that substantial offences alleged against respondents had occurred at Mysuru and as such, proceedings pending before Banasawadi Police Station came to be transferred to Mysuru City Women Police Station. Pursuant to said transfer, notice dated 01.07.2016 Annexure-M came to be issued to petitioner calling upon her to appear before the Investigating Officer to further investigate the matter. It is this notice dated 01.07.2016, Annexure-M which is questioned in these present Writ petitions.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for petitioner that offence of assault as well as cheating has taken place at Bengaluru and Banasawadi Police have shirked of their responsibility of investigating into the matter, and complaint ought not to have been transferred now registered by it to Mysuru City Women Police Station. Hence, he seeks for quashing of said notice and seeks for a writ of mandamus to first respondent to investigate the matter and file a report in the said Cr. No.728/2014 or in the alternate to transfer the case to Chikkaballapur Police Station or Gudibande Police Station for investigation and report.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP would support the impugned endorsement contending that on account of substantial offences having occurred at Mysuru, it has been transferred to Mysuru and there is no infirmity or illegality. Hence, he prays for rejection of these petitions.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and respondents and on perusal of records in general and complaint lodged by petitioner on 23.12.2014, Annexure-B in particular it would clearly disclose that all the averments made in the complaint relates to her resistance of alleged torture, on account of demand of dowry and purported harassment for dowry had taken place at Mysuru, even according to complaint allegation, except purported incident of assault by third respondent on petitioner at Bengaluru. On registering the said complaint, Banasawadi Police Station have investigated and found that substantial offences has occurred at Mysuru. Hence, Cr.No.728/2014 has been rightly transferred to Mysuru Women Police Station for being further investigated and pursuant to same they have called upon petitioner to appear before them for assisting them in investigation. There is no infirmity in this regard or illegality having been committed by first respondent authorities in transferring the said proceeding. In fact, learned HCGP has also submitted that pursuant to said transfer, investigation has been completed and jurisdictional police would be filing charge sheet before the jurisdictional court shortly.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality having been committed by first respondent in transferring the proceedings from Bengaluru to Mysuru, particularly, in the back ground of substantial offences having taken place at Mysuru.
No grounds. Writ Petitions are hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE PSG