IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.754 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K. VASUDEVA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2. SMT. AMARAVATHI W/O. K. VASUDEVA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT CHINTHALAGUNTA TALEMBEDU POST CHITTOOR (A.P) 3. SMT. JYOTHI W/O SUDHAKRA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 4. SRI. SUDHAKAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING THIMMRAYAGOWDA LAYOUT ITTIMADU, BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE … PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. M. SUDHAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. K. RAJESH S/O. K. VASUDEVA NAIDYU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDING CHINTHALAGUNTA TALEMBEDU POST CHITTOOR (A.P.) (DELETED AS PER ORDER DTD.14.3.2013) 2. SMT. SANDHYA.E W/O. SRI. K. RAJESH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.165 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS SRINIVASANAGAR BSK 1ST STAGE BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI H.R. MANJUNATHA, ADV. FOR R.2 – ABSENT; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2013 – R1 DELETED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2012 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C.-IV, BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.489/2012 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 25.06.2012 PASSED BY THE M.M.T.C-V, BANGALORE IN CRL.MISC.NO.106/2011.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri M. Sudhakar, learned advocate for the petitioners.
2. Smt. Sandhya (second respondent-complainant) is wife of first respondent-Rajesh. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are parents of Rajesh. Petitioner No.3 is Rajesh’s sister and petitioner No.4 is husband of petitioner No.3. Sandhya initiated proceedings under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘D.V Act’ for short), Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and also filed a petition seeking divorce.
3. Learned Magistrate in Crl.Misc.No.106/2011 by order dated 25.06.2012, discharged the petitioners. Complainant challenged the same in Crl.A.No.489/2012. By order dated 28.11.2012, learned Judge, Fast Track Court – IV, Bengaluru, allowed the appeal and directed the Trial Court to proceed further. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have filed this petition.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that there is no allegation under the D.V. Act against the petitioners. Complainant was staying separately. The only allegation levelled against the petitioners is that they were visiting complainant’s house and instigating her husband to harass her. It is submitted that by order dated 23.10.2018, learned XXIV A.C.M.M., Bengaluru, has acquitted the petitioners in C.C.No.14760/2011 for offences punishable under Sections 498A & 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that complainant has also obtained a decree of divorce in M.C.No.333/2011 decided on 09.11.2012 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. After obtaining divorce, complainant has re-married. He submitted that petitioners are in no way connected with the affairs of complainant and her husband. The instant complaint has been filed only to harass the petitioners. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this petition.
6. None appeared for the complainant on the last date of hearing as also today.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioners and perused the records.
8. Learned Magistrate, in his order dated 25.06.2012, passed in CC No.14760/2011 has recorded that petitioners were visiting the house of the complainant and her husband, who were residing separately and were instigating complainant’s husband to harass her. On consideration of material on record, he has recorded a finding that there is no incriminating material to believe the allegations levelled against petitioners.
9. Learned Magistrate, has further recorded that though sufficient opportunities were given and Non-Bailable Warrant and proclamation was issued against CWs.1 and 5, they did not appear before the Court. Thus, complainant has abstained from the said Court also. On consideration of material on record, learned Magistrate has acquitted the petitioners.
10. Complainant has also obtained divorce on 09.11.2012 in the Family Court, Bengaluru. It is submitted that she has re-married and has two children. Perusal of the order dated 25.06.2012, passed by the learned Magistrate discharging the petitioners shows that no material was placed before the Trial Court. Learned Appellate Judge has held that learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the material on record while discharging the petitioners. However, he has not recorded any specific reasons for reversing the order. In the conspectus of the facts of this case, the view taken by the learned Appellate Judge is not supported any cogent reasons. Hence, in my view, the judgment of learned Appellate Judge is perverse. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are aged about 60 and 55 years. Petitioner No.3 is sister of Rajesh. They have been discharged as early as in the year 2012. Complainant has not appeared in the criminal case initiated by her.
11. In the circumstances, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed. Order dated 28.11.2012 in Crl.A.No.489/2012 passed by learned Judge, Fast Track Court – IV, Bengaluru, is set aside and order of discharge dated 25.06.2012 passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.Misc No.106/2011 is restored.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV