IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.868 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Pradyumna S/o Vadiraja Rao, Aged 30 years, No.785, Mahalaxmi Nilaya, 17 B Main, 5th Block, Rajaji nagar, Bengaluru City-560 010.
(By Smt.Neeraja Karanth, Advocate) AND:
1. Smt. Anusha, W/o Pradyumna, D/o Nagaraja B.S., Aged 27 years, “Sri.Laxmi Narasimha”, 5th Cross, P & T colony, Vinobha Nagar, Shivamogga-577 204.
…Petitioner 2. The State of Karnataka, By Shivamogga Women Police Station, Shivamogga 577 201, Represented by:
The State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru-1.
…Respondents (By Sri.S.Rachaiah, HCGP for R2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the entire proceedings in CC.No.1191/2018 on the file of the II- JMFC, Shivamogga for the offence p/u/s 498A, 506 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard Smt.Neeraja Karanth, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. No notice is issued to respondent No.1, since this petition is dismissed at the threshold for the reasons indicated herein below and also on the ground that no adverse order is being passed against respondent No.1;
3. Marriage between petitioner and respondent No.1 came to be solemnized on 01.02.2017 and within a span of ten months, respondent No.1 herein lodged a complaint against petitioner and other accused alleging there was a demand for dowry on account of she and her parents not meeting the said demand, she was physically assaulted and mentally tortured. Said complaint came to be registered in CC.No.1191/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After conclusion of investigation, parents of her husband and also other family members who had been initially arraigned as accused in the complaint came to be dropped and investigating officer filed charge-sheet against petitioner alone before jurisdictional Court in CC.No.1191/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC.
4. It is the contention of Smt.Neeraja Karanth, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that alleged incident has taken place at Bangalore but complaint has been lodged at Shivamogga and proceedings have been initiated against petitioner at Shivamogga Court which has no jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offences. She would also contend that complainant is a resident of Bangalore and proceedings ought to continue at Bangalore and not at Shivamogga. She would further elaborate her submission by contending that allegations made in the complaint does not disclose any offence and as such, continuation of proceedings against petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. Hence, she prays for allowing the petition by quashing said proceedings.
5. Per contra, Sri.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State would support the prosecution initiated against petitioner and prays for dismissal of the petition. He would also submit learned public prosecutor would take appropriate steps to get the matter transferred to the jurisdictional Court at Bangalore, since alleged incident has taken place even according to complainant at Bangalore. His submission is placed on record and thereby, the first contention raised by petitioner stands addressed to.
6. In so far as second contention raised by Smt.Neeraja Karanth, learned counsel is concerned, it would not detain this Court to reject it in as much as probable defence the accused may raise during trial would not be in the domain of consideration by the Court, while considering the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. Allegations made in the complaint would disclose the offence alleged against petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court would not embark upon conducting a roving enquiry as to whether the allegations made therein are true or not that too, by scrutinizing the charge-sheet material at micro level. Any such exercise if undertaken by this Court and opinion is expressed it is likely to prejudice the rights of parties in the pending proceedings. In that view of the matter, second contention raised by learned counsel appearing for petitioner cannot be accepted.
Hence, petition stands disposed of subject to the observation made hereinabove.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, IA.No.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration.
SD/- JUDGE SB