IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5681 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
Manikantha @ Sarkar S/o Karunakaran P., Aged about 32 years, R/at 4th Main, 1st Cross, Vinobhanagar, Davanagere-577 006. …Petitioner (By Sri. Vighneshwar S. Shastri, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, By Police Sub Inspector, Women Police Station, Davanagere.
Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, High Court Building, Bengaluru-01.
2. Smt. Akshatha Rao W/o Sunil Kumar M.S., Aged about 25 years, No.1357, 2nd Cross, S.P.S. Nagar, Davanagere District-577 006. ...Respondents (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R-1; R-2 served and unrepresented) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.1161/2016 on the file of the III JMFC, Davanagere against the petitioner, registered by Police Sub-Inspector, Women P.S., Davanagere for the offence P/U/S 498(A), 506 34 read with Sec. 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act and further proceedings thereon and this petition be allowed.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is duly served and unrepresented. Perused the records.
2. A charge sheet is laid against the petitioner and two other accused persons under Section 498(A), 114, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset, submitted that the petitioner herein is not a family member of respondent No.2. There are no allegations whatsoever, against the petitioner constituting the offences under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and hence, submission of charge sheet against the petitioner for the above offences is wholly an abuse of process of the Court. Further, insofar as the offences under Sections 114, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has been implicated in the alleged offence without any basis, solely on the ground of his proximity with accused No.1. Hence, the prosecution of petitioner is illegal and abuse of process of the Court and is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 argued in support of respondent No.1 contenting that looking into the allegations, prima facie material is available in proof of the ingredients of the above offences and hence, there is no ground to quash the proceedings.
5. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
6. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, so far as the offences under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the allegations do not prima facie make out the ingredients of the above offences insofar as the petitioner is concerned, as such, the prosecution of the petitioner for the said offences cannot be sustained and no charge shall be framed against him for the said offences. The same shall be considered by the learned Magistrate at the time of framing charges against the accused. Insofar as the offences under Sections 114, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, I find material against the petitioner, which prima facie make out the ingredients of the said offences. Hence, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings as sought for by the petitioner.
Accordingly, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek his discharge before the trial Court on such grounds available under law, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BMC