Karnataka High Court
Sri Yashas Chandra vs State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 26.06.2025 R
Pronounced on : 21.07.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9276 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI YASHAS CHANDRA
S/O SRI SATHISH CHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/O NO. 1117, 3RD MAIN
'E' BLOCK, 2ND STAGE
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 010.
2 . SRI SATHISH CHANDRA
S/O LATE DR.S.VENKATARAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O NO. 1117, 3RD MAIN
'E' BLOCK, 2ND STAGE
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 010.
3 . SMT. GEETHA
W/O SRI SATHISH CHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O.NO.1117, 3RD MAIN
'E' BLOCK, 2ND STAGE
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 010.
2
4 . SMT. PADMAJA
W/O LATE SRI DINESH M.C.,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O NO. 1545/B,
IAYADA BEEDI KOTE
CHANAPATANA
CHANAPATANA - 562 160.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUBRAMANYANAGAR POLICE STATION
MALLESWARAM SUB-DIVISION
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT. XXXXXX
W/O XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI KAPIL DIXIT, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 24.07.2024 IN
SPL.C.C.NO.1493/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE 'A' ARISING OUT OF THE
FIR DATED 06.06.2024 IN CRIME NO.125/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 3(1)(r) AND (s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 AND SEC.4, 6, 8,
3
12 OF POCSO ACT, SEC.3, 4 OF DP ACT AND SEC.354(C), 376,
498-A, 506 AND 34 OF IPC AND SEC.66(E) OF IT ACT AND
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-II, BENGALURU AND ALSO THE ORDER
DATED 19.08.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE 'A1' PASSED BY THE TRIAL
COURT OF SPL.C.C.NO.1493/2024 TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE
SAID OFFENCE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 26.06.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
Petitioners/accused 1 to 4 are before this Court calling in
question proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.1493 of 2024 pending before
the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-II, Bengaluru
arising out of crime in Crime No.125 of 2024 registered for offences
punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
('the Act' for short), Sections 4, 6 8 and 12 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 66E of the Information
4
Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 354C, 376, 498A, 506 and 34 of
the IPC.
2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
The 2nd respondent is the complainant. It is the case of the
prosecution that the 1st petitioner and the complainant know each
other from the days of their college. The friendship had developed
between the two through common contacts. After such friendship,
it is the averment in the complaint, that the complainant started to
frequent the house of petitioners 1 to 3 sometimes threatening to
commit suicide if the 1st petitioner did not marry her. Unable to
bear the nuisance, it appears, the 2nd petitioner, father of the 1st
petitioner registers a complaint on 23-10-2021 before the
Subramanyanagar Police Station seeking the Authorities to take
action. Based on the said complaint, the complainant was
counselled and advised not to create any nuisance. On such advise
an undertaking is submitted by the complainant before the said
Police Station that she would not trouble the 1st petitioner and his
family in future. Based on the said undertaking, the complaint so
5
registered was rendered a non-cognizable report in N.C.R.No.255 of
2021.
2.1. The parents of the 1st petitioner believed that the 1st
petitioner and the complainant were not in touch with each other
anymore. But, it appears the 1st petitioner and the complainant
eloped to Hassan. On 12-01-2023 they get married and registers
the said marriage on 13-01-2023 at Hassan. After the marriage, the
1st petitioner and the complainant began to live separately in a
separate accommodation and it is the statement in the petition that
petitioners 2 to 4 were unaware of the marriage and residing of the
1st petitioner separately. Immediately after the marriage, the
relationship between the 1st petitioner and the complainant began
to sore and ultimately floundered. The floundering of the
relationship in their marriage leads the complainant to the
jurisdictional police seeking to register the complaint against the
petitioners alleging that the 1st petitioner has, at the time when the
complainant was below 18 years, had sexual intercourse forcibly
with the complainant before the marriage and after the marriage
has indulged in offences of brutal sexual assault which becomes an
6
offence under Section 376 of the IPC and has been staking the
complainant throughout and threatening the complainant that he
would leak the intimate images or private videos of the complainant
if she would not yield to the request of the 1st petitioner.
2.2. Against other petitioners, it is the allegation that they
have hurled abuses against the complainant in a place of public
view or a public place which is an offence under the Act. All these
allegations, which form the complaint, become a crime in Crime
No.125 of 2024. The Police conduct investigation and filed a charge
sheet. Filing of the charge sheet results in the concerned Court
registering Special C.C.No.1493 of 2024 for the afore-quoted
offences of the Act, IPC, POCSO Act, Dowry Prohibition Act and the
Information Technology Act. It is the registration of the special
criminal case that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the
subject petition.
3. Heard Sri K.N. Phanindra, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners; Shri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State
7
Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Kapil Dixit,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
would vehemently contend that no prima facie case even, is made
out against the petitioners. The petitioners have not committed any
offence as is alleged against them in the charge sheet. It is only a
result of shoddy investigation. The 1st petitioner and the
complainant voluntarily got married and due to marital differences
as a counterblast to the divorce proceedings instituted by the
husband, the complainant has registered the crime. In the previous
complaint or interactions with the Police Authorities there was no
whisper about sexual assault or rape having been committed by the
1st petitioner upon the complainant throughout. The complainant
has roped in offences under the POCSO Act and sexual acts
including rape, of the offences which are said to have taken place
on 4-08-2029, 4-09-2019 and 29-09-2019 during college days of
the complainant. A reading of the complaint, the learned senior
counsel would submit, shows no offence under the Act is alleged
8
against the petitioners. There are no ingredients of the offences
under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4.1. The 4th petitioner is a distant relative and has been
without any rhyme or reason dragged into these proceedings. The
learned senior counsel would submit that in the complaint and in
the charge sheet, it is the case of the complainant that, she met the
1st petitioner through a male friend at her Pre-University College
days at Jain College in the year 2018-19. However, the complainant
has never studied in Jain College as she has studied in Kerala. Her
marks sheet is indicative of the fact that she has passed out from
the Kerala Board of Public Examinations. There is a delay in lodging
the FIR which was not explained by the complainant.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent/complainant would vehemently refute each one of the
submissions contending that the acts between the complainant and
the 1st petitioner have taken place prior to the marriage, in fact, 5
years prior to the registration of the crime itself at the time when
the complainant was still below 18 years of age. Insofar as
9
discrepancy with regard to marks sheet and other indicators alleged
by the petitioners, the learned counsel would submit that these are
matters which require trial as to whether the complainant has
studied in Jain College or at Kerala. Above all, the learned counsel
would submit that even today if the 1st petitioner takes back the
complainant/wife into the family fold, she would withdraw all her
complaints and settle the matter.
6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that
all those efforts have already been done and nothing has yielded
any fruits. Therefore, he would request this Court to answer the
issue on its merits.
7. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
Sri B.N. Jagadeesha would also refute the submissions of the
learned senior counsel for the petitioners in contending that all the
submissions that are made are a matter of trial in which the
petitioners will have to come out clean. The hurling of abuses is
clearly seen on whatsapp chats between the two and the assault on
10
the wife by the husband also is a matter of record. In that light, he
would seek dismissal of the petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
9. Though the dates and link in the chain of events are not in
dispute they would require reiteration. The 1st petitioner and the
complainant are said to have befriended each other through
common friends while the complainant was studying at Jain College
and the friendship between the two is said to have blossomed into
love. The love appears to have gone to the stage of obsession of
the complainant over the 1st petitioner. Therefore, the complainant
is said to have frequented her visit to the house of the petitioners.
Being fed up with this, a complaint is registered by the 2nd
petitioner/father of the 1st petitioner against the complainant on
23-02-2021.The complaint reads as follows:
"23-10-2021
Bangalore.
11
To,
Inspector,
Subramanyanagar Police station,
Rajajinagar, Bangalore - 10.
Sir,
Sub: Regarding Blackmail to my son Yashas
Chandra S from XXXX (XXXX) Father of
XXXXX XXXX.
I Satishchandra N.V. (9902096703) residing at
1117/Mantikrupa 1st floor, 3rd main, E Block, want to register
a complaint against XXXX who is friends with my son for last
3 years. Recently my son has come to know that she was
cheating on him with her ex-boy friend Varun Katra K.G.
Vansh katri, my son wants to cancel his relationship but she
is blackmailing by coming to my house saying she will
commit suicide by taking pills and poison and creating
nuisance near my house, request you to please look into the
matter and sent it out.
XXXXX Regards
XXXXX, Sathishchandra N.V
XXXXX 9902096703.
XXXXX 1117, Mantrikrupa 1st Floor
XXXXX 3rd Main, E Block,
XXXXX Rajajinagar, B'lore-560010"
Pursuant to the complaint so registered, the complainant is said to
have been summoned to the Police Station in terms of law and is
said to have been advised. The complainant is said to have
undertaken that she would not bother the 1st petitioner and his
family. The undertaking given reads as follows:
"From:
12
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
To
Police inspector,
Subramanya Police station
Subject; I won't be bothering Yashas Chandra and his family.
Respected sir,
I xxxx D/o xxxx aged: 20 years, today I came to police
station contacted police inspector they have shown NCR
255/2021 I see the complaint and to know consonsiously
agree to the complaint given by satish Chandra and Yashas
Chandra and hence fourth I won't be bothering yashas and
his family. Hence fourth I will responsible for my further
mistakes done by me and I whole heartily ask sorry to
Yashas Chandra and family for the thing that to has
happened and I won't be committing such an incidents to the
future coming days. I will be responsible for my own life and
no one will be responsible for that.
Finally I conclude that I won't be anywhere meeting
him or having contact with him in future days, I am sorry for
what I have done.
I have received nothing from him nor he have take
anything from him. I have consciously said the above words.
Thanking you,
xxxx."
On the said undertaking, comes a non-cognizable report on
25-10-2021 in NCR.255 of 2021. Thus, would come to an end the
first episode of squabble between the two.
13
10. Time passes by and the love between the 1st petitioner
and the complainant appears to have grown strong which the
parents were unaware. Therefore, the 1st petitioner and the
complainant elope and get married in Hassan and register their
marriage again before the Registrar of Marriages at Hassan. Post
the marriage, the complainant and the 1st petitioner began to reside
separately in a rented accommodation. As time progressed, love
also progressed between the two. However, the relationship
between them completely flounders. It led the complainant seeking
to register a complaint on 27-03-2024. On the same day, the
Police are said to have summoned the 1st petitioner on the
complaint and asked the couple to appear before the Vanitha
Sahayavani for counselling. The counselling is said to have failed.
Therefore, the two proceedings spring - one the registration of
matrimonial case seeking annulment of marriage by the husband
against the wife on 06-04-2024 and the complaint against the
husband and family members by the wife on 03-06-2024. The
complaint so registered against the 1st petitioner which has
triggered registration of crime is as follows:
"ರವ ೆ.
14
ಾ ಾ ಾ ಗಳ ,
ಸುಬ ಮಣ ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
ರವ ಂದ,
ೕಮ . Xxxx,
ೋಂ ಯಶ ಚಂದ .ಎ ,
21 ªÀµÀð
Xxxxx
xxxxx.
&ಾನ 'ೇ,
(ಷಯ:
(ಷಯ ನನ* ಗಂಡ,ಾದ ಯಶ ಚಂದ .ಎ ಮತು/ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ ರ (ರುದ2
3ೕಡು ರ
/ ುವ ದೂರು.
ದೂರು
****
4ೕಲ6ಂಡ (7ಾಸದ 8 ,ಾನು ನನ* ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ 'ೊಂ9 ೆ :ಾಸ:ಾ;ರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ.
ಮೂಲತಃ >ಾಸನ ?@ೆ8, >ಾಸನ <ಾಲೂ8ಕು, ,ಾ ೇನಹBC ಾ ಮದ 8, ಯಲಗುಂದ ಅಂEೆ ಪ ಷG
Hಾ , ಉಪ ಪಂಗಡ:ಾದ ಲಂ ಾJ (ಬಂHಾ'ಾ) Hಾ ಯ 8 ಜ3Lರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ, ,ಾನು ೆಂಗಳ ನ
ೕ MಾN (Oಾ ಲಯದ 8 Pೌ ಢSಾ@ೆ >ಾಗೂ ಜಯನಗರದ 8ರುವ HೈU ಾ@ೇ?ನ 8 V.ಯು.L
>ಾಗೂ 2,ೇ ಾ8W, 'ಾHಾ?ನಗರದ 8ರುವ ೆ.ಎX.ಇ. ಾ@ೇ?ನ 8 Z.Z.ಎ ([ಾಗದ 8 :ಾ ಸಂಗ
&ಾಡು /ರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ.
ಈ;ದ] 8 ,ಾನು MಾN (Oಾ ಲಯ Pೌ ಢSಾ@ೆಯ 8 :ಾ ಸಂಗ &ಾಡು /ರು:ಾಗ 10,ೇ
ತರಗ ಯ ನನ* ಸಹPಾ^ ಕೃ W ಾಬು ಎಂಬುವವ'ೊಂ9 ೆ :ಾ ಸಂಗ &ಾಡು /ರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ. ,ಾನು
10,ೇ ತರಗ ಮು;L HೈU ಾ@ೇ?ನ 8 (Oಾ [ಾ ಸ &ಾಡು /ರು:ಾಗ ಕೃ W ಾಬು
ರವ'ೊಂ9 ೆ ಆ ಾಗ [ೇabಾಗು /ರು:ಾಗ, ಕೃ W ಾಬುರವರು ಅವರ Mೆ*ೕcತ ಯಶ ಚಂದ
ಎಂಬುವವನನು* ನನ* ಮ,ೆಯ ಹ /ರ ಪ ಚಯ &ಾd ೊaGದು], ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಎಂಬುವವರು
'ಾHಾ?ನಗರ 'ಇ' ಾ8W, 2,ೇ ಹಂತ, 3,ೇ ಮುeಯ ರMೆ/, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಇ 8 :ಾಸ:ಾ;ರು<ಾ/'ೆ.
(Door No:- 1117)
cೕ;ದ] 8, ಸದ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಎಂಬುವವರು ಬನಶಂಕ ಯ Z.ಎಂ.ಎU. L.n. BNM
IT ಾ@ೇ?ನ 8 Nದು] /ದ]ರು, ಸದ ಯವರು 'ಾHಾ?ನಗರ 3:ಾಸದ 8 :ಾಸ:ಾ;ದು], ಅವರು
ನನ ೆ £Àನ* Mೆ*ೕcತ,ಾzÀ ಕೃ W ಾಬು ನನ* f ೈX ಸಂgೆ ಯನು* <ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡನು. ನಮh
ಪ ಚಯ:ಾದ ಸಂದಭjದ 8 ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು 8197267605 ಸಂgೆ ಯನು*, 2020ರ ವಷjದ
ªÀgÉUÉ §¼À¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ ತದವಂತರ 7899916707 ಸಂgೆ ಯನು* ಬಳಸು /ರು<ಾ/'ೆ.
15
ಸದ ಯವರ Mಾk ೕನದ 8 ಡೂ W-390 9kಚಕ :ಾಹನ(ದ] ಂದ ನಮh ಪ ಚಯದ
ನಂತರದ 8 ನನ*ನು* 'ಾHಾ?ನಗರ9ಂದ ಜಯನಗರ ೆ6 ತನ* 9kಚಕ :ಾಹನದ 8 ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು
>ೋಗುವlದು. ಬರುವlದು &ಾಡು /ದ]. ಈ ಸಮಯದ 8 ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು ನನ ೆ 3ನ*,ೆ*ೕ ,ಾನು
ಮದು:ೆbಾಗು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು, 3ೕನು ನನ ೆ ತುಂ ಾ ಇಷG:ಾ;9]ೕಯ ಎಂದು >ೇಳ /ದ]ರು, ಆಗ ,ಾನು
ನನ* ವಯಸುm ಇನೂ* 17 ವಷj:ಾ;ದು], ನನ ೆ ಇನೂ* ಮದು:ೆಯ ವಯMಾm;ಲ8. ನನ ೆ ಮದು:ೆ
&ಾd ೊಳ Cವlದು ಇಷG(ಲ8, ನನ* ಮದು:ೆಯ (Eಾರವ,ೆ*@ಾ8 ನಮh ಮ,ೆಯವರು
,ೋd ೊಳ C<ಾ/'ೆಂದು ,ಾನು >ೇBOೆನು. ನನ* &ಾ ೆ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು ೋಪ ೊಂಡು
3ೕನು ನನ*ನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾಗOೇ >ೋದ'ೆ ,ಾನು ಆತhಹ<ೆ &ಾd ೊಳ CವlOಾ; ನನ ೆ ೆದ ೆ
>ಾಕು /ದ]ರು. ,ಾನು ಅವನ ೆದ ೆ ೆ >ೆದ ,ಾನು ಮದು:ೆಯ (Eಾರವ,ೆ*ಲ8 ಮುಂOೆ
,ೋnೋಣ:ೆಂದು ತnೆಯು<ಾ/ ಬರು /Oೆ]ನು.
cೕ;ದ] 8 ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು ರHೆಯ 9ನಗಳ 8 ೆ.ಎ-01-ಎo.?-4644, ಐ-20
ಾರನು* <ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ನನ*ನು*, ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರ Mೆ*ೕcತ'ಾದ ,ೆಹರೂ, ಕೃ W,
ಸಮq ರವರನು* ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋ; ೆಂಗಳ ನ ಎಂ.?.ರMೆ/, ಕಬrUPಾWj >ಾಗೂ
ೆಂಗಳ ನ ಇ3*ತರ ಸsಳಗB ೆ ನಮhನು* ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋಗು /ದ]ನು.
cೕ;ದ] 8 9,ಾಂಕ: 4-8-2019 ರಂದು Mೆ*ೕcತರ 9ನ(ದ] ಾರಣ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು
ೆ.ಎ-01-ಎo.?. 4644, ಐ-20 ಾ ನ 8 ತನ* Mೆ*ೕcತ'ಾದ ,ೆಹರೂ, ಕೃ W, ಸಮq ರವ'ೊಂ9 ೆ
ನನ* ಮ,ೆಯ ಹ /ರ ಬಂದು ನನ*ನು* ೆಂಗಳ ನ ಎಂ.?. 'ೋdನ 8ರುವ ಒಂದು ಪu ೆ ಾ ನ 8
ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋದರು. ನನ*ನು* ಪu ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋದ ನಂತರ ಅವ'ೆಲ8ರೂ Zಯv
ಕುdದು ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು ನನ ೆ ಇದು 3ೕರು ಎಂದು fಟG fದ ೆ Zಯv ಕುdLದರು,
,ಾನು Zಯv ಕುdದ ನಂತರದ 8 ನನ ೆ ಅwಾG; ಪ xೆNಲ8ದ ಾರಣ ನನ*ನು* &ಾಗdಯ ಹ /ರ
ಇರುವ ಸವನದುಗj ೆಟG ೆ6 ಯಶ ಚಂದ , ,ೆಹರೂ, ಕೃ W, ಸಮq ರವರುಗಳ ನನ*ನು*
ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋದರು. ,ಾನು ಅವರನು* ಎ 8 ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋಗು /9]ೕರ ಎಂದು ನನ ೆ ಪ xೆ
ಬಂದ ಕೂಡ@ೇ ,ಾನು ಾ ನ 8ರು:ಾಗ@ೇ ೇBOಾಗ, ಸದ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು ಈ 9ನ
Mೆ*ೕcತರ 9ನ:ಾದ] ಂದ ,ಾ:ೆಲ8ರೂ ೆಟGದ 4ೕ@ೆ >ೋ; yೕzೋ <ೆ ೆದು ೊ7ೆ Cೕಣ ಎಂದು
>ೇBದ. ನಂತರದ 8 ,ಾವl ೆಟGದ 4ೕ@ೆ >ೋOಾಗ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು ನನ*ನು* ಪ <ೆ ೕಕ:ಾ;
ೆಟGದ 4ೕ ದ] ;ಡ-ಮರಗಳ Oೆ ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋ; ನನ*ನು* ತZr ೊಂಡು, ನನ ೆ
ಮುತು/ ೊಟುG, ನನ ೆ @ೈಂ;ಕ { | ೆ ಪ Eೋ9Lದ. ಆಗ ,ಾನು ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವ ೆ ,ಾ3ನೂ*
ಅPಾ ಪ/ ವಯಸ6ಳ ಎಂದು ,ಾನು AiÀıÀ¸ï ZÀAzÀæ gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ತBC ಓdಬಂOೆನು. ನಂತರದ 8
ನನ*ನು* ನನ* ಮ,ೆಯ ಹ /ರ ZಟುG AiÀıÀ¸ïZÀAzÀæ PÉÆÃ¥À¢AzÀ ºÉÆgÀlĺÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ.
16
cೕ;ದ] 8 ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು ಪ 9ನ ನನ* f ೈX ನಂ. Xxxxxx ೆ :ಾ•m ಅ€
4Mೇ•, f ೈX ಕ'ೆ &ಾಡು /ದ]ನು. ಇದ ೆ6 ,ಾನು ಪ { | ೊಡOೇ ಇದ] ಾರಣ ೆ6 ಯಶ
ಚಂದ ರವರು ನನ* ಾ@ೇ?ನ ಬB ಬಂದು 3ೕನು ನನ* Hೊ<ೆ ಮದು:ೆ ೆ ಒV‚ ೊಳCOೇ >ೋದ'ೆ
3ನ*ನು* MಾNL, 3ಮh ಮ,ೆಯವರ,ೆ*@ಾ8 MಾNL, ,ಾನೂ ಸಹ ಆತhಹ<ೆ
&ಾd ೊಳ C<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು ನನ ೆ ಮತು/ ನನ* ಕುಟುಂಬ ೆ6 Pಾ ಣ ೆದ ೆ >ಾಕು /ದ] ಈ ೆದ ೆ ೆ
,ಾನು ಭಯ(ದು] ನನ ೆ ಯಶ ಚಂದ >ೇBದ >ಾ ೆ ನnೆದು ೊಳ Cವlದು ZಟುG ೇ'ೆ Oಾ Nಲ8ದ
ಾರಣ ,ಾನು ಯಶ ಚಂದ >ೇBದ]ನು* &ಾd ೊಳCಲು ಒV‚ ೊಂnೆನು.
cೕ;ದ] 8 9,ಾಂಕ:04-09-2019 ರಂದು ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು ನನ ೆ ೆದ ೆ >ಾ{
ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರ ಮ,ೆ ೆ ಬರ ೇ ೆಂದು >ೇBದನು. ಆಗ ,ಾನು ಇದ ೆ6 ನನ* ತಂOೆಯವರು
ಒಪl‚ವl9ಲ8:ೆಂದು ,ಾನು ಎಷುG >ೇBದರೂ ೇಳOೆ 3ೕನು ಬರOೆ >ೋದ'ೆ 3ನ*ನು*, 3ನ*
ತಂOೆಯವರನು* ೊಲು8<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ೇBದ ಮತು/ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ನನ* ಮ,ೆಯ 8 ನನ* ತಂOೆ-<ಾN
ನನ* ಅಕ6 ಎಲ8ರೂ ಇದ]'ೆ 3ೕನು ಾ ಎಂದು >ೇBದ ಆಗ ,ಾನ ೆ ಅನ &ಾಗj(ಲ8Oೆ, ಯಶ ಚಂದ
Hೊ<ೆ ೆ >ೋOೆನು. ,ಾನು ಅವರ ಮ,ೆ ೆ >ೋ; ,ೋdOಾಗ ಯಶ¸ïಚಂದ ರವರು ಮ,ೆಯ 8
bಾರೂ ಇರ ಲ8. ಆಗ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು ಬಲವಂತ:ಾ; ನನ* ಇಷGದ (ರುƒಧ ,ಾನು ಎwೆGೕ
ೇಡ:ೆಂದು ಕJ...ರು >ಾ{ದರೂ ನನ* ಇEೆ†ಯ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ನನ* 4ೕ@ೆ ಅ<ಾ Eಾರ &ಾdದ,
ನಂತರದ 8 3ೕನು ಇನು* ಮುಂOೆ ನನ* ZಟುG ಎ 8ಗೂ >ೋಗುವlದ ೆ6 ಆಗುವl9ಲ8, ,ಾನು >ೇBದ
>ಾ ೆ 3ೕನು ೇಳ ೇಕು, ಇಲ89ದ]'ೆ ,ಾನು ಎಲ8 ಗೂ 3ೕನು ವ ‡Eಾ |ಂದು >ೇಳ <ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು
>ಾಗೂ ಈ (ಷಯ 3ಮh ಮ,ೆಯವ ೆ >ೇBದ'ೆ ನನ*ನು* ೊಲು8ವlOಾ; ನನ ೆ ಯಶ ಚಂದ
Pಾ ಣ ೆದ ೆ >ಾ{ದ. ಘಟ,ೆ ನnೆದ &ಾರ,ೆಯ 9ನ ಅಂದ'ೆ 05-09-2019 ರಂದು ಯಶ ಚಂದ
ರವರು ನನ* ಮ,ೆಯ ಬB ಬಂದು ಐ-‰X ಎಂಬ &ಾ<ೆ ಯನು* 3ೕd 3ೕನು ಇದನು* ನುಂಗು 3ೕನು
ಗ‡jJbಾಗುವl9ಲ8:ೆಂದು >ೇB ನನ ೆ ಒ<ಾ/ಯಪŠವjಕ:ಾ; &ಾ<ೆ ನುಂ;Lದ. ಈ
ಘಟ,ೆbಾದ ನಂತರ 9,ಾಂಕ: 29-09-2019 ರಂದು ,ಾನು ೆB ೆ‹ ಾ@ೇ? ೆ >ೋಗುವ
ಸಮಯದ 8 ನನ* ಮ,ೆಯ ಬB ಬಂದು ನನ*ನು* ಒ<ಾ/ಯಪŠವjಕ:ಾ; ೆಂಗಳ ನ
ಪ ಾಶನಗರದ 8ರುವ ಔ'ಾ-ಇU ಎಂಬ @ಾrÓ ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋOಾಗ ,ಾನು ಯಶ
ಚಂದ 3 ೆ ,ಾ3ನೂ* ಅPಾ ¥ÉÛ, ನನ ೆ ಇOೆಲ8ವŠ ಇಷG:ಾಗುವl9ಲ8 ಎಂದು >ೇBದರೂ ಸಹ ನನ*
ಇEೆ•ಯ (ರುದ2 ಮ<ೊ/4h ಅ<ಾ Eಾರ &ಾdದ >ಾಗೂ ನ3*Eೆ• ೆ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ನನ* yೕzೋ, ನನ*
gಾಸ; (dŽೕವನು* ಯಶ ಚಂದ ತನ* f ೈXನ 8 &ಾd ೊಂಡು 3ೕನು ಇನು*ಮುಂOೆ
ನ,ೊ*ಂ9 ೆ @ೈಂ;ಕ ಕೃತ ೆ6 ('ೋ Lದ'ೆ 3ನ* (dŽೕವನು* ಎ@ಾ8 Mಾ&ಾ?ಕ Hಾಲ
<ಾಣಗಳ 8 ಎಲ8 ಗೂ ತಲುಪlವಂ<ೆ ಹಂಚು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು ನನ ೆ >ೆದ L ನನ* 4ೕ@ೆ ಅ<ಾ Eಾರ
&ಾdದ.
17
cೕ;ದ] 8 ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು ಮ,ೆ ನಂ.21/07, 8,ೇ ಮುಖ ರMೆ/, 2,ೇ ಹಂತ, 'd'
ಾ8W, gÁeÁf£ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-10 ರ 8 ನನ* ಮತು/ ನನ* ಸಹPಾa ರವ ೆ 4ೕಘನ ರವ ೆ
ಾd ೆ ªÀģɪÀiÁr vÀ£Àß ¸ÉßûvÀgÁzÀ LOಾ]ಥj, 4ೕಘನ ರವರನು* ಉBLದು], ಸದ
ಮ,ೆಯ 8ಯೂ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ಇZÉÑ ೆ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ಅ<ಾ Eಾರ ನnೆLರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಸದ ಮ,ೆಯು
ನನ* ಮತು/ ªÉÄÃWÀ£À ºÉ¸Àj£À°è PÀgÁjgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
cೕ;ದ] 8 ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು ಒಂದು 9ನ ನನ* ಮ,ೆಯ ಬB ಬಂದು 3ನ ೆ ೇಲೂರು-
ಹ7ೇZೕಡು >ಾಗೂ >ಾಸನವನು* <ೋ ಸು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ೇB ನನ*ನು* >ಾಸನ ೆ6 ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು
>ೋ; 9,ಾಂಕ:13-01-2023 ರಂದು ನನ* ಇEೆ†ಯ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ನನ*ನು*
ಉಪ,ೋಂದ ಾ ಾ ಯವರ ಕ'ೇ ಯ 8 ,ೊಂOಾNತ (:ಾಹ:ಾದನು ( ?¸ÀÖç &ಾ 'ೇ•).
ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು ನನ*ನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾದ ನಂತರದ 8 ನನ ೆ 3ನ* ತಂOೆಯು 3ವೃತ/ ೆ.ಇ.Z
ಇಂ?3ಯ'ಾ;ದು], 3ನ* ತಂOೆಯವ ೆ 3ೕ(ಬr'ೇ >ೆಣು... ಮಕ67ಾ;ರುವ ಾರಣ 3ನ* ತಂOೆಯ
ಬB >ೆ'† ೆ ಹಣ ಮತು/ ಆL/Nರುತ/Oೆ ಎಂದwೆGೕ ,ಾನು 3ನ*ನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾ;ರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ ಎಂದು
>ೇBರು<ಾ/,ೆ.
ನಮh ಮದು:ೆbಾದ ನಂತರ ನನ*ನು* ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು ಅವರ ಮ,ೆ ೆ
ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋದರು. ಆಗ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರ ತಂOೆಯವ'ಾದ ಸ ೕ"ಚಂದ >ಾಗೂ
<ಾNಯವ'ಾದ ;ೕ<ಾ ರವರು 3ೕನು {ೕಳ Hಾ ಯ 8 ಹುaGದು], ,ಾವl 4ೕಲು Hಾ ೆ Mೇ ದು],
3ನ*ನು* ನಮh ಮ,ೆಯ 8 ಇ ಸಲು Mಾಧ (ಲ8, 3ೕನು ತುಂ ಾ {ೕಳ ಮಟGದ ಪ ಷ" Hಾ bಾದ
ಲಂ ಾJ Hಾ ಯ 8 ಹುaGದು], 3ೕನು ನನ* MೊMೆbಾಗಲು Žೕಗ ಳಲ8 ಎಂದು ತುಂಬ ೆಟG
ಶಬ]ಗBಂದ ಬಹಳ Hೋ'ಾ; ನನ*ನು* ೈದು, ಒnೆದು ನನ* 4ೕ@ೆ ಏಕ ಾಲದ 8 ಹ@ೆ8 &ಾdರು<ಾ/'ೆ.
ನನ*ನು* ಮ,ೆಯ 8 ಇ L ೊಳCಲು ಒಪ‚ ಲ8. ನಂತರದ 8 ,ಾನು ಮತು/ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು ನನ*
ತಂOೆಯ ಮ,ೆ ೆ ಬಂದು :ಾLಸು /Oೆ]ವl. ನ-hಬrರ ಮದು:ೆ ಇಷG(ಲ8ದ bಾಶ ಚಂದ ರವರ
ತಂOೆ-<ಾN ರವರು ಅವರ ಮ,ೆ ೆ ನನ*ನು* Mೇ ಸ ಲ8.
cೕ;ದ] 8 ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರ ತಂOೆ ಸ ೕ"ಚಂದ >ಾಗೂ <ಾN ;ೕ<ಾ ರವರು ಪŠವj
3ಗ9ತ Žೕಜ,ೆŽಂ9 ೆ ನನ ೆ ಕ'ೆ &ಾd 3ನ ೆ ಮತು/ ನ£Àß ಮಗನ 4ೕ@ೆ ದೃ--GOೋಷ(Oೆ.
:ಾ&ಾEಾರದ ಪ Žೕಗ:ಾ;Oೆ. cೕ ಾ; ನಮh ಕುಟುಂಬದ 8 ಕಲಹ:ಾಗು /ದು], ಇದರ ಪ >ಾರ
&ಾಡಲು 3ೕನು ನfhಂ9 ೆ ರುಪ ೆ ಬರ ೇ ೆಂದು >ೇB ನನ*ನು* ಅವ'ೊಂ9 ೆ 9,ಾಂಕ:29-
11-2023 ರ 8 ನನ* ಗಂಡ ಯಶ ಚಂದ , ಅವರ <ಾN ;ೕ<ಾ, ಅಕ6 ಪದhಜ ರವ'ೊಂ9 ೆ ನನ*ನು*
ರುಪ ೆ ವಣj ಾ ನ 8 ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋ; ನನ* ಇEೆ†ಯ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ನನ* ತ@ೆ ಕೂದಲನು*
<ೆ ೆLದರು. ನಂತರದ 8 Oೇವರ ದಶjನ &ಾdL 9,ಾಂಕ:30-11-2023ರಂದು ೆಂಗಳ ೆ
ಕ'ೆದು ೊಮಡು ಬಂದು ಇನು* 5 9ನಗಳ ನಂತರ 3ನ*ನು* ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋಗು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ೇB,
18
3ನ* ಆ'ೋಗ ಉತ/ಮ:ಾಗಳ ಸ‚ಂದನ >ಾL‚ಟX, 'ಾHಾ?ನಗರ, 'ಾಮಮಂ9ರ ಹ /ರ
nಾ॥ V ೕ >ಾಗೂ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರ <ಾNಯ Mೆ*ೕc<ೆbಾದ ಪŠJjಮ ರವರು 15 9ನಗಳ
ವ'ೆ ೆ Nexito 15mg ಈ ಔಷ ಮತು/ &ಾ<ೆ ಗಳನು* <ೆ ೆದು ೊಳC ೇ ೆಂದು >ೇB, ನನ*ನು*
&ಾನLಕ:ಾ; ˜ನ*<ೆ ೆ ಒಳಪdಸಲು ಔಷ ಮತು/ ªÀiÁvÉæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ,ಾನು ಅವರುಗಳ
&ಾತುಗಳನು* ನಂZ ಅವರು 3ೕdರುವ ಔಷ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁvÉæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Éë¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. EzÀjAzÀ
£Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ T£ÀßvÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
ನನ* ತಂOೆಯ ಮ,ೆಯ ಬB ZಟುG >ೋದರು. ಆದ'ೆ ನನ* ಗಂಡ ಈ ಸಮಯದ 8 ನನ*
ತಂOೆಯ ಮ,ೆಯ 8 ನನ* Hೊ<ೆ ೆ :ಾಸ(ದ] >ಾಗೂ ಅವರ <ಾNಯವರ ಮ,ೆಗೂ ಸಹ >ೋ;
ಬರು /ದ].
cೕ;ದ] 8 ಯಶ ಚಂದ ನಮh ತಂOೆಯ ಮ,ೆಯ 8 ನ,ೊ*ಂ9 ೆ ಸಂMಾರ &ಾಡು /ದ]
ಮತು/ ನ,ೊ*ಂ9 ೆ ಾಂಡ™ ಬಳL @ೈಂ;ಕ { |ಯನು* &ಾಡು /ದ]. ಸದ (ಷಯ ೆ6 ,ಾನು
ಅdšಪdLದ] ೆ6 ಯಶ ಚಂದ ನು ಮಕ6ಳ ಸದ ೆ6 ೇಡ ಮುಂOೆ ,ೋnೋಣ ಎಂದು >ೇಳ /ದ]
ಮತು/ ಾಂnೋ™ ಬಳL ನ,ೊ*ಂ9 ೆ @ೈಂ;ಕ { | ನnೆಸು /ದ]. ,ಾನು ನನ* ಗಂಡ3 ೆ 3ಮh
ಮ,ೆ ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋಗು ಎಂದು ೇBOಾಗ@ೆಲ8, 3ೕನು 3ನ* ತಂOೆNಂದ ಆL/ ಬ'ೆL ೊಂಡು
ಾ, ಆಗ &ಾತ ನನ* ತಂOೆ-<ಾN ಮತು/ ನನ* ಅಕ6ನವರು 3ನ*ನು* ಮ,ೆ ೆ Mೇ L ೊಳ C<ಾ/'ೆ.
ಇಲ89ದ]'ೆ 3ನ*ನು* ಮ,ೆ ೆ Mೇ L ೊಳC ಾರOೆಂದು ಯಶ ಚಂದ ನು ತಂOೆ-<ಾN ಮತು/
<ಾNಯ ಅಕ6ನವರು >ೇBರುವlOಾ; ಯಶ ಚಂದ ನು >ೇಳ /ದ]ನು. ಯಶ ಚಂದ ನು ನನ*
ತಂOೆಯ ಮ,ೆ ೆ ಕುdದ ಬಂದು 3ನ*ನು* MಾNL ,ಾನು, ನಮh Hಾ ಯ 8 ೇ'ೆಯವ'ೊಂ9 ೆ
ಇನೂ* >ೆ'†ನ ವರದ› ೆ ಪnೆದು ಮದು:ೆbಾಗು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು ನನ*ನು* ಅ&ಾನ(ೕಯ<ೆNಂದ ತುಂ ಾ
(ಕೃತ:ಾ; ನನ*ನು* (ವಸ/ ೊBL Oೇಹದ ಎ@ಾ8 [ಾಗಗB ೆ ರಕ/ ಬರುವ >ಾ ೆ >ೊnೆದು,
ಾNಯ 8 ರಕ/ ಬರುವ >ಾ ೆ >ೊnೆದು, Oೇಹದ ಎ@ಾ8 [ಾಗಗBಗೂ Lಗ'ೇa3ಂದ ಚು'†, ನನ ೆ
ಭಯ‡ೕ ಹುaGಸು /ದ] >ಾಗೂ ಈ (ಷಯ >ೊರಗnೆ &ಾ<ಾdದ'ೆ ಾ 3ಂದ ನನ*ನು* ಅಪœತ
&ಾd ೊ 8ಸು<ೆ/ೕ:ೆ ಎಂದು BLದ. &ಾರ,ೆಯ 9ನ ,ಾ,ೇ ನಮh ಮ,ೆಯ 8|ೕ ಪ ಥಮ
'{<ೆmಯನು* &ಾd ೊಂdರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ.
ಆದ] ಂದ ,ಾನು ತಮh 8 ೇB ೊಳ CವlOೇ,ೆಂದ'ೆ ,ಾನು ಅPಾ ಪ/ ವಯLmನ 8Oಾ]ಗ,
ಯಶ ಚಂದ ನು ನನ* ಇEೆ†ಯ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ನನ* ಇEೆ†ಯ (ರುದ2 ಅ<ಾ Eಾರ:ೆಸ;ದ >ಾಗೂ
ಮದು:ೆಯ ಮುಂEೆಯೂ ಸಹ ನನ* ಇEೆ• ೆ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ಅ<ಾ Eಾರ:ೆಸ;ದ ಯಶ ಚಂದ >ಾಗೂ
ನನ* ಮದು:ೆಯ ನಂತರದ 8 ನನ*ನು* ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು >ಾಗೂ ತಂOೆ ಸ ೕ" ಚಂದ , <ಾN
;ೕ<ಾ >ಾಗೂ <ಾN ಅಕ6 ಪದhHಾರವರುಗಳ Mೇ ೊಂಡು ನನ*ನು* &ಾನLಕ:ಾ;, Oೈcಕ:ಾ;
ಕುರುಕುಳವನು* 3ೕdದ]ಲ8Oೆ, ನನ* ?ೕವನವನು* >ಾಳ &ಾdರು<ಾ/'ೆ. ಆದ] ಂದ ಇವರುಗಳ (ರುದ2
19
ಾನೂನು ೕತ ಕ^ಣ ಕ ಮವನು* ೈ ೊಂಡು ನನ ೆ ಆ;ರುವ ಅ,ಾ ಯ ೆ6 ,ಾ ಯ
ಒದ;L ೊಡ ೇ ಾ; ತಮh 8 ಕಳಕBNಂದ (ನಂ L ೊಳ C<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ.
ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ,
ಇಂ ತಮh (•ೇಯ
Xxxxx
(xxxx)"
Police conduct investigation. Immediately after registration of
crime, the Magistrate records statement under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C. The statement of the complainant reads as follows:
"9:12.06.2024 ರಂದು Mಾ› ೆ ,ಾ bಾಲಯದ 8 ಪ &ಾಣವಚನ ೋ ಸ@ಾNತು.
ಸ@ಾNತು
ಕಲಂ 164(5) ದಂಡ ಪ { ಯ ಸಂc<ೆಯd Mಾ›ಯ >ೇB ೆ :-
-:ಕಲಂ
Sೆžೕ--ತಳನು* (Eಾ ಸ@ಾ;, ಆ ೆಯು MಾŸ ವನು* ಸkಇEೆ•Nಂದ 3ೕಡಲು
ಬಂ9ರುವlOಾ; >ಾಗೂ ತನ ೆ MಾŸ 3ೕಡಲು bಾರು ಒ<ಾ/ಯ &ಾdರುವl9ಲ8:ೆಂದು
BLರು<ಾ/'ೆ.
Mಾ› (Eಾರ ೆ Pಾ ರಂಭ:ಾದ ಸಮಯ ಮ•ಾ ಹ* 5.15 ಗಂzೆ.
ಗಂzೆ
,ಾನು ನನ* 10,ೇ ತರಗ ಯವ'ೆ ೆ (Oಾ [ಾ ಸವನು* MಾN (Oಾ ಲಯ Pೌ ಢSಾ@ೆ
'ಾHಾ?ನಗರದ 8 ಮು;Lದು], ಆ ಸಮಯದ 8 ಕೃ W ಾಬು ಎನು*ವ ನನ* Mೆ*ೕcತ ಇದು], ನನ*
>ಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಮ,ೆ ಸkಲ‚ ದೂರನ 8 ಇದು]. 10 ,ೇ ತರಗ ಮು;ದ ನಂತರ ,ಾನು ಮತು/ ಕೃ W
ಾಬು Mೆ*ೕcತ'ಾ; Lಗು /ದು], ಆ ಸಮಯದ 8 ಕೃ W ಾಬು ರವರ ಯಶ ಚಂƒರ ಅವ,ೊಂ9 ೆ
ಬಂ9ದು] ನನ*ನು* &ಾತ,ಾdL >ಾ ೆ >ೋ;ರು<ಾ/'ೆ. ನನ* f ೈX ಸಂgೆ ಯನು* ಯಶ ಚಂದ
ಈತನು ಕೃ W ಾಬು ಈತನ ಹ ರ
/ <ೆ ೆದು ೊಂdದು], ಆ ಸಮಯದ 8 ,ಾನು HೈU ಾ@ೇ• ನ 8
ಓದು /ದು] ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು Z ಎU ಎಂ ಐ a, ಬನಶಂಕ ಯ 8 (Oಾ [ಾ ಸ
&ಾಡು /ದು], ,ಾವl Mೆ*ೕcತ'ಾ;ದು] ನನ*ನು* ಾ@ೇ• ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋ; ಮತು/ ಮ,ೆ ೆ
:ಾಪಸು Zಡು /ದ]ನು. ಅOಾದ ನಂತರ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು ನನ*ನು* 3ನ*ನು* ಕಂಡ'ೆ ಇಷG
ನನ*ನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾಗು ಎಂದು >ೇBರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಅದ ೆ6 ನನ* ತಂOೆ, <ಾN ಯವರು ಆ (Eಾರವನು*
,ೋd ೊಳ C<ಾ/'ೆ ಎಂದು >ೇBರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ. ಈಗ (Oಾ [ಾ ಸ &ಾಡ ೇ ೆಂದು >ೇBರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ. ಅದ ೆ6
ಆತನು 3ನ*ನು* ಕಂಡ'ೆ ತುಂ ಾ ಇಷG 3ೕನು ಇಲ8 ಎಂದ'ೆ ,ಾನು ಸತು/ >ೋಗು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ ಎಂದು
>ೇBರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ,ಾನು ಅದ ೆ6 ಈಗ Mೆ*ೕcತ'ಾ;ದು], ಮುಂOೆ ,ೋd ೊ7ೆ Cೕಣ ಎಂದು
20
>ೇBರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ. ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನ ಹ /ರ ಾರು ಇದು] ,ಾ:ೆಲ8ರೂ 4 ಜನ Mೆ*ೕcತ ದು], ಎಂ ?
ರMೆ/ ಕnೆಗ7ೆ@ಾ8 ಓnಾಡು /Oೆ]ವl. 9.04.08.2019 ರಂದು Mೆ*ೕcತರ 9ನ ಇದು] ,ಾ:ೆಲ8ರೂ ಪZr ೆ
>ೋ;ರು<ೆ/ೕ:ೆ. ಆಗ ನನ ೆ 18 ವಷj ಆ;ದು] ,ಾನು ಜೂ ಸನು* ಆಡjv &ಾdದು], ಯಶ ಚಂದ
ಮತು/ ಅವರ Mೆ*ೕcತರು ಮಧ Pಾನ ಆಡjv &ಾdರು<ಾ/'ೆ. ,ಾನು &ಾW zೈX ಆಡjv
&ಾdದು] ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು >ೋ; ಮದ Pಾನ &ಾdLರು<ಾ/,ೆ. Mೆ*ೕcತರ 9ನ ಇ9]ದ] ಂದ
ಎಲ8ರೂ yೕzೋ <ೆ ೆದು ೊ7ೆ Cೕಣ ಎಂದು >ೇB ,ಾಗರ[ಾ( ಕnೆNಂದ nಾ - ೆ
>ೋ;ರು<ೆ/ೕ:ೆ. ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು ,ಾ(ಬr'ೇ ೕzೋ <ೆ ೆದು ೊ7ೆ Cೕಣ ಎಂದು ಯಶ
ಚಂದ ಈತನು ನನ ೆ ಮುತು/ ೊಟುG ೇ'ೆ ೇ'ೆ ೕ ಗಳ 8 ನನ*ನು* ಮುಟGಲು Pಾ ರಂಭ
&ಾdದನು. ,ಾನು ಆತನನು* ದೂd Mೆ*ೕcತರ ಕnೆ >ೋOೆ. ಅOಾದ ನಂತರ ನನ*ನು* ಯಶ ಚಂದ
ಈತನು ಮ,ೆ ೆ ZaGರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಅOಾದ ನಂತರ ,ಾನು ಾ ನ 8 >ೋಗ ಲ8. 4zೊ ೕದ 8 ಾ@ೇ•
>ೋಗಲು Pಾ ರಂಭ &ಾdOೆ. ಅOಾದ ನಂತರ ನನ* ನಂಬv ೆ yೕU &ಾdದು] ,ಾನು
<ೆ ೆದು ೊಂdರುವl9ಲ8. ಒಂದು 9ನ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು ನನ* ಾ@ೇ• ಕnೆ ೆ ಬಂ9ರು<ಾ/,ೆ.
ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು ನನ* ಕnೆ ಬಂದು 3ೕನು ಮದು:ೆbಾಗಲು ಒಪ‚9ದ]'ೆ 3ನ* ತಂOೆ
<ಾNಯನು* MಾNL, 3ನ*ನು* MಾNL ,ಾನು ಸತು/>ೋಗು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ ಎಂದು ೆದ Lರು<ಾ/,ೆ.
9.04.09.2019 ರಂದು ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು ನನ*ನು* ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಅವರ ಮ,ೆ ೆ
>ೋ;ರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಆಗ ಅ 8 bಾರೂ ಇರ ಲ8. ,ಾನು ಎwೆGೕ ೇಡ ೇಡ ಎಂದರೂ ಕೂಡ
ಬಲವಂತ:ಾ; ನನ* ಇಷG ದ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ನನ*ನು* ಉಪŽೕ;L ೊಂಡು ನನ* 4ೕ@ೆ ಬಲ<ಾ6ರ
&ಾdರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಆಗ yೕzೋ ಮತು/ (ೕdŽೕಗಳನು* &ಾdರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಆಗ ಈಗ ಏನೂ
&ಾಡ@ಾಗುವl9ಲ8 ನನ*,ೇ ಮದು:ೆbಾಗ ೇಕು. ನ,ೊ*ಂ9 ೆ ಇರ ೇಕು ಎಂದು, ಇಲ8:ಾದ'ೆ
yೕzೋ (ೕdŽೕಗಳನು* Mೆ*ೕcತ ೆ ಕಳ cಸು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ೇBರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಸkಲ‚ 9ನ ಆದ ನಂತರ
,ಾನು ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರ <ಾNಯವರನು* [ೇa &ಾd ಅವನು &ಾdದ ಕೃತ ದ ಬ ೆ‹
BLರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ. ಅದ ೆ6 ಅವರ <ಾN (ಷಯ ಎಲೂ8 >ೇಳ ೇಡ. ,ಾನು ಮದು:ೆ &ಾdಸು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು
>ೇBದರು. ಪ ಾ" ನಗರದ 8 ಇರುವ >ೋzೆX ಅವ'ಾಯU ಅ 8 ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋ; ಾ8W
4ೕX &ಾd, ಅ 8ಯೂ ಕೂಡ ನನ* ಇEೆ†ಯ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ಬಲವಂತ &ಾd ಅ<ಾ Eಾರ
&ಾdರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಅOಾದ ನಂತರ :ಾರ ೆ6 ಒಂದು ಾ bಾದರೂ ನನ*ನು* ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋ;
Oೈcಕ:ಾ; ನನ*ನು* ಬಳL ೊಳ C /ದ]. ಅOಾದ ನಂತರ ,ಾನು ೆ ಎX ಇ ಾ@ೇ• ನ 8 ಓದು /ದು]
ನನ* Mೆ*ೕc<ೆ 4ೕಘ ಎನು*ವವಳ ಇದು], Mೆ*ೕcತ LOಾ]gïÜ ಎನು*ವವನು ಇದು], ಯಶ ಚಂದ
ಈತನು 4ೕಘ ಎನು* ವವರ Hೊ<ೆ ಮ,ೆ &ಾd ೊ ಎಂದು >ೇBರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ನನ* ಮತು/ 4ೕಘ ರವರ
>ೆಸ ನ 8 ಾd ೆ ಕ'ಾರುಪತ ವನು* &ಾdLರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಅ 8ಯೂ ಕೂಡ ಮದು:ೆbಾಗು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು
>ೇB ನನ*ನು* ಬಲವಂತ:ಾ;, Oೈcಕ:ಾ; ಉಪŽೕ;L ೊಂಡು ಅ<ಾ Eಾರ &ಾdರು<ಾ/,ೆ.
9.12.01.2023 ರಂದು a V‚ ೆ >ೋ ೋಣ ಎಂದು >ೇB ಹ7ೇ ೇಡು ಹ /ರ ನನ*ನು* ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು
>ೋ; ನಂತರ >ಾಸU ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋ; ಉಪ,ೋಂದ ಾ ಕEೇ ಯ 8 ಸc &ಾd
21
ಮದು:ೆbಾಗ9ದ]'ೆ ನನ* ತಂOೆ <ಾNNಯವರನು* MಾNಸು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ ಎಂದು ಮತು/
(ೕdŽೕಗಳನು* Mಾ&ಾ?ಕ Hಾಲ<ಾಣಗಳ 8 >ಾಕು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ ಎಂದು >ೆದ L
ಉಪ,ೋಂದ ಾ ಾ ಯವ ಕEೇ ಯ 8 ಮದು:ೆbಾ;ರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಅOಾದ ನಂತರ ಅವನು ನನ*ನು*
ಅವರ ತಂOೆ <ಾN ಮ,ೆ ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋ;ರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಆಗ ಅವರ <ಾN ನನ*ನು* ಮ,ೆ ೆ
Mೇ ಸ@ಾಗOೆ ,ಾನು ಲಂ ಾJ Hಾ ಯವಳ ಎಂದು >ೇB. ನಮhದು 4ೕಲ Hಾ 3ಮhದು
{ೕಳ Hಾ ಎಂದು ೆಟG ೆಟG ಶಬ]ಗBಂದ ೈದು ನನ*ನು* ಮ,ೆ ೆ Mೇ ಸ ಲ8. ನಂತರ ,ಾನು ನನ*
ತಂOೆ <ಾN ಯವರ ಮ,ೆ ೆ >ೋ;ರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ. ನನ* ತಂOೆ <ಾNಯವರ ಮ,ೆ ೆ >ೋ; ,ಾನು
ೇd ೊಂಡು ಅವರು ಒV‚ ೊಂಡು ನನ*ನು* ಮ,ೆ ೆ Mೇ Lರು<ಾ/'ೆ. ಯಶ ಚಂದ bಾವlOೇ
ೆಲಸ &ಾdರ ಲ8. ನನ* ತಂOೆಯವ'ೇ ,ೋd ೊಳ C /ದ]ರು. ಒಂದು 9ನ ಆತನು ನನ*ನು*
ಮದು:ೆbಾ;ರುವlದು ದುdš ೋಸ6ರ ಎಂದು >ೇBರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ನಂತರ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತ3 ೆ
bಾ'ೋ &ಾಟ &ಾdLOಾ'ೆಂದು ನನ*ನು* ರುಪ ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋ; ಯಶ ಚಂದ
ಈತನ <ಾN ಮತು/ ಅವರ ಅಕ6 ನನ* ಇEೆ†ಯ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ನನ* ತ@ೆ ಕೂದಲನು* <ೆ ೆL ಆಗ
ನನ*ನು* MೊMೆ ಎಂದು ಒV‚ ೊಳ C<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ೇBದ]ರು. ನಂತರ ನನ*ನು* ಸ‚ಂದನ ಆಸ‚<ೆ ೆ ಕಳ cL
ನನ ೆ &ಾvÉæಗಳನು* ೊdLರು<ಾ/'ೆ. ,ಾನು ಒಂದು :ಾರಗಳ ಾಲ &ಾ<ೆ ಗಳನು* <ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು
,ಾನು ಬ ೕ 3Oೆ]ಯನು* &ಾಡು /Oೆ]. ,ಾನು &ಾ<ೆ ಗಳನು* <ೆ ೆದು ೊಳ Cವlದನು* ZaGದ] ೆ6 ಯಶ
ಈತನು* ಒಂದು 9ನ ನನ*ನು* >ೊnೆ9ರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ನನ* ತಂOೆಯವರು ಒಡ:ೆಯನು* ಅದ ಬದ
&ಾdL ನನ ೆ ಒಡ:ೆಗಳನು* ೊdLರು<ಾ/'ೆ. ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು ಸದ ಒಡ:ೆಗಳನು* ಅವರ
<ಾN ೆ ೊಡ ೇ ೆಂದು ಅವlಗಳನು* ೊdLರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ನಂತರ ನನ* ತಂOೆಯವ ೆ ಒಂದು
ಮ,ೆNದು] ಅದನು* ಬ'ೆL ೊಂಡು ಾ ಎಂದು ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು ನನ ೆ ಹ@ೆ8 &ಾd
ೈ9ರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಆಗ ಸದ (Eಾರವನು* ಅವರ <ಾN ೆ >ೇBOಾಗ ಅವರ <ಾNಯು 3ೕನು
ಬ'ೆL ೊಂಡು ಾ ಎಂದು ೈ9ರು<ಾ/'ೆ. ನಂತರ ನನ ೆ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಮತು/ ಆತನ <ಾN Hಾ
,ೋd ಮದು:ೆbಾಗ ೇ{ತು/ ಎಂದು >ೇB ನನ ೆ 'ತ cಂMೆ 3ೕdರು<ಾ/'ೆ. ನಂತರ ನನ ೆ
>ೊnೆಯುವlದು, ೈಯುವlದನು* &ಾd ನಂತರದ 8 ತನ* <ಾNಯ ಮ,ೆ ೆ ಓd>ೋ;ರು<ಾ/,ೆ.
ಆದ] ಂದ ಅವರುಗಳ 4ೕ@ೆ ಾನೂ3ನ ಕ ಮ ೈ ೊಳC ೇ ೆಂದು ೇB ೊಳ C<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ.
Mಾ›ಯ (Eಾರ ೆ ಮು ಾ/ಯ:ಾದ ಸಮಯ ಮ•ಾ ಹ* 5.45 ಗಂzೆ
.... .... ....
Sd/-
(; ೕ" ಚnß)
21 ,ೇ ಅ.ಮು.ಮ.ದಂ. ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
(&ಾನ L.ಎಂ.ಎಂ. ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಇವರ (Sೇಷ ಅ ಸೂಚ,ೆ 9,ಾಂಕ:23-03-2018 ADM-
1/01/2018 ರ ಪ ಾರ ಸುಬ ಮಣ ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆ ೆ :ಾ V/ ೆ ಒಳಪಡುವ ಪ ಕರಣಗB ೆ
22
ಸಂಬಂ Lದಂ<ೆ ಕಲಂ 164 ರ ಅdಯ 8 >ೇB ೆಗಳನು* ಈ ,ಾ bಾಲಯವl ಪnೆದು ೊಳC ೇ ೆಂಬ
ಆOೇಶದ 4ೕ'ೆ ೆ ಈ Mಾ›ಯನು* ಮc7ಾ ಮುಖ PೇOೆ ಸಂ: 15645 >ಾಗೂ ಅರŸಕ ಉಪ
3 ೕŸ'ಾದ ನಂ93, ಸುಬ ಮಣ ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆ >ಾಜರುಪdLರು<ಾ/'ೆ.
ದೃ¡ೕಕರಣ: Mಾ›ಯು >ೇBದ MಾŸ ವನು* ಯ¢ಾವ<ಾ/; Mಾ›ಯು >ೇBದಂ<ೆ
Oಾಖ ಸ@ಾ;ರುತ/Oೆ >ಾಗೂ ಸದ MಾŸ ವl Mಾ›ಯು >ೇBದ ಪŠಣj MಾŸ :ಾ;ರುತ/Oೆ ಎಂದು
ದೃ¡ೕಕ ಸ@ಾ;Oೆ."
This leads the police filing a charge sheet against the petitioners.
The summary as obtaining in Column No.7 of the charge sheet
reads as follows:
"¸ÁQë-01 gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÁ¸À£À f¯Éè & vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ Mಾ ಾ4 >ೋಬB, ಯಲಗುಂದ ಅಂEೆ, ,ಾ ೇನ
ಹBC <ಾಂಡ ದ ಪ ಷG Hಾ ಯ ಉಪ ಪಂಗಡ:ಾದ ಲಂ ಾJ ಜ,ಾಂಗ ೆ6 Mೇ ದ Mಾ›-02 &
Mಾ›-03 ರವರ ದಂಪ ಗಳ { ಯ ಮಗ7ಾ;ದು], ಲಂ ಾJ ಜ,ಾಂಗ ೆ6 ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¸ÁQë-04 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ಅವರ >ೆಂಡ ೕಮ .ಸ'ೋಜ ರವ ೆ ಮಕ6ಳ ಇಲ8Oೇ ಇದು]ದ] ಂದ Mಾ›-04
ರವರ >ೆಂಡ ೕಮ .ಸ'ೋಜ ರವರು Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ಅವರ ಮ,ೆ ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು
ಇOೇ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ, 'ಾHಾ?ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹ9] ೆ Mೇ ದ ಅವರ 'ಾHಾ?ನಗರ,
2,ೇ MೆGೕ•, d ಾ8W, 1,ೇ Z ಮುಖ ರMೆ/,ನಂ.1756/ಎ ರ ಮ,ೆಯ 8 L ೊಂಡು ೕಷಕ'ಾ;
Mಾ{ರು<ಾ/'ೆ.
2018-19,ೇ Mಾ ನ 8 Mಾ›-01 ರವರ ಾ8 4• ಆ;ದ] Mಾ›-05 ರವರ ಕnೆNಂದ ಈ
Oೋwಾ'ೋಪ ಾ ಪaGಯ ಅಂಕಣ-04 ರ 8 ನಮೂ9Lರುವ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು Mಾ›-01 ರವ ೆ
ಪ ಚಯ:ಾ; ವಯಸ6,ಾ;ದ] 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ತನ* PÉ.J.02-eÉ.PÀÆå-6864
ನಂಬ ನ ೆ.a.ಎಂ ಡೂ W -390 ೈWನ 8 ಕೂ L ೊಂಡು Mಾ›-01 ರವರು :ಾ ಸಂಗ &ಾಡು ದ]
ಜಯನಗರದ 8ದ] HೈU ಾ@ೇ?ನ ಬB ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋ; Zಡುವlದು, ಮ<ೆ/ೕ ಾ@ೇ?3ಂದ
ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬರುವlದನು* &ಾಡು<ಾ/ ಅPಾ ಪ/ AiÀiÁVzÀÝ ¸ÁQë-01 gÀªÀjUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ಇಷG
ಆ;9]ೕbಾ. ,ಾನು 3ನ*ನು* ಇಷGಪಡು /ದು] ಮುಂOೆ ,ಾನು 3ನ*ನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾಗು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು
ಪ ೕ &ಾdOಾಗ Mಾ›-01 ರವರು ,ಾ3ನು* ಅPಾ ¥ÉÛbಾ;ದು] ನನ;ನೂ* 17ವಷj DVzÀÄÝ
ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì DV®è £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ EµÀÖ«®è ¸ÉßûvÀgÁVgÉÆÃtªÉAzÀÄ
ºÉýzÁUÀ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¦æÃw¹ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀ®Ä M¦àPÉƼÀîzÉà ಇದ]'ೆ
23
,ಾನು ಆತhಹ<ೆ &ಾd ೊಳ C<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು Eಾಕುವನು* ಆತನ ಕ / ೆ cdದು ೊಂಡು
ಕೂಯು] ೊಳ C<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು Mಾ›-01 ರವ ೆ >ೆದ L ಆತನ <ೋರು ೆರಳನು* Eಾಕು(3ಂದ ೊಯು]
ೊಂnಾಗ Mಾ›-01 ರವರು ಭಯಪಟುG ಮದು:ೆ ಮುಂದ ೆ6 ,ೋnೋ ಾವಂದು >ೇB V ೕ ಸಲು
ಓV‚ ೊಂnಾಗ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ೆ.ಎ.01-ಎಂ?-4644 ನಂಬ ನ ಐ-20
ಾ ನ 8 ಕೂ L ೊಂಡು Mಾ›-05, 06 07 ಮತು/ ಇತ'ೆ Mೆ*ೕcತ'ೊಂ9 ೆ Eಾ•m ನ*ಲು, ಊಟ
&ಾಡಲು ಎಂ.?.ರMೆ/. ಕಬrU PಾWj >ಾಗೂ ೆಂಗಳ ನ ಇ3*ತ'ೆ ಸsಳಗB ೆ
>ೋಗು /ದು]ದ]ಲ8Oೇ, 9,ಾಂಕ:04-08-2019 ರಂದು 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* Mಾ›-
05, 06. 07 ರವ'ೊಂ9 ೆ ಕುಂಬಳಗೂಡು ೕ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹ9] ೆ Mೇ ದ ೆಂಗಳ ರು
cಂ ಾಗದ eÁUÀPÉÌ PÀgÉದು ೊಂಡು >ೋ; Mಾ›-05, 06, 07 ರವರು ಾ ನ 8 ಕುBತು ೊಂdOಾ]ಗ
1,ೇ ಆgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë-01 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV VqÀ ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À ¥ÉÆzÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ
ºÉÆÃV Mಾ›-01 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ತZr ೊಂಡು ಮುತು/ ೊಟುG @ೈಂ;ಕ { | ೆ ಪ Eೋ9Lರುವlದು
ತ3gೆNಂದ ದೃಡಪaGರುತ/Oೆ.
ನಂತರ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು 9,ಾಂಕ:04-09-2019 ರಂದು ಇOೇ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ,
ಸುಬ ಮಣ ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹ9] ೆ Mೇ ದ 'ಾHಾ?ನಗರ, 2,ೇ MೆGೕ•, ಇ ಾ8W, 3,ೇ
ಮುಖ ರMೆ/, ನಂ.1117 ರ 1,ೇ ಮಹdಯ 8ರುವ ತನ* ಮ,ೆ ೆ Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು
>ೋ; ತನ* :ಾಸದ ಮನದರಹ UɸïÖgÀÆAನ 8 Mಾ›-01 ರವರ ಇಷG ೆ6 (ರುದ2:ಾ; ಬಲವಂತ
9ಂದ @ೈಂ;ಕ ಸಂ[ೋಗ ನnೆL ಇನೂ* ಮುಂOೆ 3ೕನು ನನ*ನು* ZಟುG ಎ 8ಗೂ >ೋಗುವlದ ೆ6
ಆಗುವl9ಲ8 ,ಾನು >ೇBದಂ<ೆ 3ೕನು ೇಳ ೇಕು ಇಲ89ದ]'ೆ ಎಲ8 ಗೂ 3ೕನು ವ ‡Eಾ ಎಂದು
>ೇಳ <ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ೆದ Lರುವlದಲ8Oೇ 9,ಾಂಕ:29-09-2019 ರಂದು 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋಪಯು
ಅPಾ ¥ÉÛbಾ;ದ] Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ಪ ಾಶನಗರ, nಾll 'ಾ• ಕು&ಾv ರMೆ/ಯ 8ರುವ OgÁ E£ï
JA§ @ಾ¤¥ ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋ; ಸದ @ಾ¤¥ನ ರೂಂ ನಂಬv -301 ರ 8 ಬಲವಂತ9ಂದ
Mಾ›-01 ರವರ ಇಷG ೆ6 (ರುದ2:ಾ; @ೈಂ;ಕ ಆ<ಾ Eಾರ:ೆಸ; Mಾ›-01 ರವರ SÁ¸ÀVÃ
¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼ÀÄ ಮತು/ (dŽೕ ಗಳನು* 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು ತನ* ಐ-yೕU f ೈX ¥sÉÆãï£À°è
awæPÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁQë-01 gÀªÀjUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ E£ÀÆß ªÀÄÄAzÉ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄUÉ
«gÉÆâü¹zÀgÉ gಾಸ;ೕ yೕzೋ ಗಳ ಮತು/ (dŽೕಗಳನು* ಎಲ8 ಗೂ ತಲುಪlವಂ<ೆ
Mಾ&ಾ?ಕ Hಾಲ<ಾಣಗಳ 8 ಅ€@ೋ¤ &ಾಡುವlOಾ; >ೆದ L Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ಪzÉà ¥ÀzÉÃ
¸ÀzÀj ¯ÁrÓUÉ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋ; @ೈಂ;ಕ ಸಂ[ೋಗ ನnೆLರು<ಾ/,ೆ.
ನಂತರ Mಾ›-01 ರವರು ವಯಸ67ಾದ 4ೕ@ೆ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು 2 & 3,ೇ
ಆ'ೋVತರು ಒಪl‚ವl9ಲ8:ೆಂದು Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾಗOೇ CAvÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß
PÁAiÀÄÄÝPÉƼÀî®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQë-01 gÀªÀgÀÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ºÉzÀj¹
£À£ÀߣÀÄß ¦æÃw¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ನaL ನನ*ನು* ಾ ನ 8 ಮತು/ ೈWನ 8 ಎ@ಾ8 ಕnೆ ಸು<ಾ/dL
24
§®ªÀAvÀ¢AzÀ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ @ೈಂ;ಕ ಸಂ[ೋಗ ನnೆL ಈಗ ಮದು:ೆbಾಗುವl9ಲ8:ೆಂದು
>ೇಳ /9]ೕbಾ 3ೕನು ನನ*ನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾಗ9ದ]'ೆ ,ಾನು 3ಮh ಮ,ೆ ಮುಂOೆ ಆತhಹ<ೆ
&ಾd ೊಳ C <ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ೇBOಾಗ 2,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು ಸುಬ ಮಣ ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆಯ 8 Mಾ›-
01 ರವರ (ರುದ2 ಕಂPೆ8ೕಂ• &ಾdOಾಗ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು Mಾ›-01 ರವ ೆ ಇನೂ* ಮುಂOೆ ಈ
ೕ ಮೂಡುವl9ಲ8 PÀë«Ä¹ ಎಂದು ಬ'ೆದು ೊಡುವಂ<ೆ >ೇB ˜ತ ಮೂಲಕ ಬ'ೆL ೊಟುG ನಂತರ
ಇOೇ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ, 'ಾHಾ?ನಗರ, d ಾ8W, 2,ೇ ಹಂತ, 8,ೇ ಮುಖ ರMೆ/, ನಂ.2107 ರ
,ೆಲªÀÄಹdಯ ಮ£Éಯನು* ಾd ೆ ೆ ಪnೆದು ೊಂಡು ಸದ ಮ,ೆಯ 8 2022,ೇ ಇಸ( ಜನವ
ಂಗB3ಂದ 2022,ೇ ಇಸ( ಆಗ G ಂಗBನವ'ೆ ೆ Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ೕ(ಂ¦ ಟೂ ೇದv
jÃwಯ 8 ಇ L ೊಂಡು Mಾ›-01 ರವ ೆ 3ನ* gಾಸ;ೕ yೕzೋಗಳ ಮತು/ (dŽೕಗಳನು*
Mಾ&ಾ?ಕ Hಾಲ<ಾಣಗಳ 8 ಆ€@ೋ¤ &ಾಡುವlOಾ; >ೆದ L ಬಲವಂತ9ಂದ @ೈಂ;ಕ
ಸಂ[ೋಗ ನnೆLರುವlದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ9ರುತ/Oೆ
ಇOಾದ ನಂತರ Mಾ›-01 ರವರು 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು ಮದು:ೆbಾಗOೇ ಇOಾ]ಗ 1,ೇ
ಆ'ೋVಯ (ರುದ2 ೕPÉÆìà ಾNOೆಯdಯ 8 ಪ ಕರಣ Oಾಖ ಸಲು Lದ2<ೆ &ಾd
ೊಳ C /ರುವ (Eಾರವನ* Bದು ೊಂಡು ಸದ ಪ ಕರಣ9ಂದ ತV‚L ೊಳ Cವ ಉOೆ]ೕಶ9ಂದ
ಾನೂನು ಪ ಾರ ,ೋಂಧ ಮc7ೆಯನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾ; (:ಾಹ (Eೆ†ೕದನ ಪnೆದು ೊಳ Cವ Pಾ8U
&ಾd 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು 2023,ೇ ಇಸ( ಜನವ ಂಗBನ 8 Mಾ›-04 ರವರ ಮ,ೆಯ ಬB
>ೋ; Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* >ಾಸನ ೆ6 ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋ; 9,ಾಂಕ:12-01-2023 ರಂದು
OೇವMಾsನದ 8 ಮದು:ೆ bಾ; ನಂತರ Mಾ›-02 & 03 ರವರ ಮ,ೆ ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋ; Mಾ›-
02 & 03 ರವ ೆ Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* Eೆ,ಾ*; ,ೋd ೊಳ C<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ೇB 9,ಾಂಕ:13-01-
2023 gÀAzÀÄ >ಾಸನ ಸu ?ಸGv ಕ'ೇ ಯ 8 ಮದು:ೆಯನು* ,ೋಂಧ ೆ &ಾdL Mಾ›-01
ರವರನು* ೆಂಗಳ ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು ತನ* ಮ,ೆ ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು
>ೋಗOೇ Mಾ›-04 ರವರ ಮ,ೆಯ 8|ೕ ಇ L ೊಂಡು Mಾ›-01 ರವ ೆ ಸದ ೆ6 ಮಕ6ಳ ೇಡ
ಎಂದು >ೇB ಾಂnೋ™ ಬಳL @ೈಂ;ಕ ಸಂ[ೋಗ ನnೆಸು /ದು]ದ]ಲ8Oೇ, Mಾ›-01 ರವರು
ಪ ಷG Hಾ ಯ ಲಂ ಾJ ಜ,ಾಂಗ ೆ6 Mೇ ರುವ (Eಾರ ಮತು/ ಂ ಾNತ ಜ,ಾಂಗ ೆ6 Mೇ ರುವ
3ವೃತ/ ೆ.ಇ.Z ಇಂ?3ಯv ಆ;ರುವ Mಾ›-04 ರವ ೆ ಮಕ6ಳ ಇಲ8Oೇ ಇದ] ಂದ Mಾ›-01
ರವರನು* ತನ* ಮ,ೆಯ 8 L ೊಂಡು ೕಷಕ'ಾ; Mಾ{ರುವ (Eಾರ ೊ<ಾ/; Mಾ›-01 ರವ ೆ
3ಮh Mಾಕು ತಂOೆಯ ಬB >ೆ'† ೆ ಹಣ ಆL/ ಇOೆ ಎಂದwೆGೕ ,ಾನು 3ನ*ನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾ;ರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ
3ೕನು 3ನ* Mಾಕು ತಂOೆಯ ಕnೆNಂದ ಆL/ಯನು* ಬ'ೆL ೊಂಡು ಬರುವಂ<ೆ ಓ<ಾ/ಯ &ಾಡು<ಾ/
Oೈcಕ:ಾ; ಮತು/ &ಾನLಕ:ಾ; {ರುಕುಳ 3ೕಡಲು Pಾ ರಂ‡LOಾಗ Mಾ›-04 ರವರು Mಾ›-01
ಮತು/ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯನು* 2023,ೇ ಇಸ( ಜು@ೈ ಂಗBನ 8 ಅವರ ಮ,ೆ ೆ ಕಳ cL ೊzಾGಗ 2
& 3,ೇ ಆ'ೋVತರು Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ತಮh ಮ,ೆŽಳ ೆ Mೇ L ೊಳCOೆ ಾ;ಲ ಬB|ೕ
25
ತnೆದು 3 8L Mಾ›-01 ರವ ೆ 3ೕನು {ೕಳ Hಾ ಯ 8 ಹುaGದು], ,ಾವl 4ೕಲು Hಾ ೆ Mೇ ದು]
3ನ*ನು* ನಮh ಮ,ೆಯ 8 ಇ L ೊಳCಲು Mಾದ (ಲ8, 3ೕನು ತುಂ ಾ {ೕಳ ಮಟGದ ಲಂ ಾJ
Hಾ ಯ 8 ಹುaGದು] 3ೕನು ನಮh MೊMೆbಾಗಲು Žೕಗ ಳಲ8 ಎಂದು ಅ:ಾಚ ಶಬ]ಗBಂದ ೈದು
3ಂ L ಅವ&ಾನ &ಾd :ಾPಾಸುm ಕಳ cLರುವlದು ತ3gೆNಂದ ದೃಡಪaGರುತ/Oೆ.
ತದನಂತರ Mಾ›-04 ರವರು Mಾ›-01 ಮತು/ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋV ೆ ಬಸ:ೇಶkರನಗರ,
ಶಂಕರಮಠದ ಬB ಅವರ &ಾ ೕಕತkದ 8ದ] ಮ,ೆಯನು* ZಟುG ೊaGದು], ಸದ ಮ,ೆಯ 8 Mಾ›-01
ಮತು/ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು :ಾಸ:ಾ;ರು:ಾ ೆ‹ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು 2 & 3,ೇ ಆ'ೋVತರ ಮ,ೆ ೆ
>ೋ; ಬರು /ದು] ಎಲ8ರೂ Mಾ›-01 ರವ ೆ ಅವ&ಾನ &ಾಡ ೇ ೆಂಬ ಉOೆ]ೕಶ9ಂದ Pಾ8U &ಾd
Mಾ›-01 ರವ ೆ 3ನ ೆ ದೃ--GOೋಷ(Oೆ ಪ >ಾರ &ಾdಸ ೇ ೆಂದು >ೇB 1, 2, 3 & 4,ೇ
ಆ'ೋVತ'ೆಲ8ರೂ Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* 9,ಾಂಕ:29-11-2023 ರಂದು ರುಪ ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು
>ೋ; Mಾ›-01 ರವರ ಇಷG ೆ6 (ರುದ2:ಾ; ಬಲವಂತ9ಂದ ತ@ೆಯ ಕೂದಲನು* <ೆ ೆL :ಾPಾಸುm
ೆಂಗಳ ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಸkಲ‚ 9ನಗಳ ನಂತರ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋಗುವlOಾ; >ೇB
Mಾ›-04 ರವರ ಮ,ೆಯ 8 ZಟುG >ೋದವರು ಆ'ೋVತರು Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ಅವರ ಮ,ೆ ೆ
ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋಗOೇ ಇOಾ]ಗ Mಾ›-01 ರವರು 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋV ೆ 3ಮh ಮ,ೆ ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು
>ೋಗುವಂ<ೆ ೇBOಾಗ@ೆ@ಾ8 3ೕನು 3ಮh ತಂOೆಯ ಕnೆNಂದ ಆL/ಯನು* ಬ'ೆL ೊಂಡು ಾ ಆಗ
&ಾತ ನಮh ತಂOೆ <ಾN 3ನ*ನು* ಮ,ೆ ೆ Mೇ L ೊಳ C<ಾ/'ೆ ಇಲ89ದ]'ೆ ,ಾನು >ೆ'†ನ
ವರದ›Jಯನು* ಪnೆದು ೇ'ೆ ಹುಡು;ಯನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾಗು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು &ಾನLಕ:ಾ; {ರುಕುಳ
3ೕd ಪŠವj 3ಗ9ತ Žೕಜ,ೆಯಂ<ೆ Mಾ› 01 ರವರ ಕnೆNಂದ (:ಾಹ (Eೆ†ೕದನ ಪnೆಯಲು
ೌಟುಂZಕ ,ಾ bಾಲಯದ 8 ಅ?j ಸ 8Lರುವlದು ತ3gೆNಂದ ದೃಢಪaGರುತ/Oೆ."
After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate takes
cognizance of the offences and commits the matter to the Court of
Session, where the proceeding is registered as Spl.C.C.No.1493 of
2024. It is this that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the
subject petition. The protagonists in the crime are the husband of
the complainant, the 1st petitioner, the mother-in-law and father-in-
26
law of the complainant and a distant relative of the 1st
petitioner/husband who is said to have sat for settlement talks.
OFFENCES UNDER THE ATROCITIES ACT - PETITIONERS
2 TO 4:
11. At the outset, I deem it appropriate to consider the
allegations against petitioners 2 to 4 and then, consider the
allegations against the 1st petitioner. The allegation against
petitionrs 2 to 4 inter alia, are the ones punishable under Section
3(1)(r) and (s) of the Act. The said provisions read as follows:
"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.--(1)
Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe,--
... ... ...
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in
any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;"
Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Act mandate that abuses with an
intention to insult a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe must be hurled in a place of public view or a public
place. The complaint and the summary of the charge sheet is
27
quoted hereinabove. Upon meticulous perusal of the
complaint, the charge sheet and the submissions advanced
at the bar, the Court discerns that the allegations against
petitioners 2 to 4, are but vague imprications, unanchored
infact, and barren of legal substratum necessary to sustain
prosecution. The elements required to constitute offences
under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act - particularly,
the necessity that the offensive conduct occur in public view,
with a specific intent to humiliate on caste lines. These are
conspicuously absent. Even if the alleged utterances were
taken on the face value, they do not pass the statutory
threshold to invite criminal culpability.
12. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of HITESH VERMA v. STATE OF
UTTARAKHAND1 wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:
".... ..... ....
"14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult
or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to
be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for
consideration before this Court in the judgment reported
1
(2020) 10 SCC 710
28
as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8
SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] . The Court had drawn
distinction between the expression "public place" and "in
any place within public view". It was held that if an offence
is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a
house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the
road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn
would certainly be a place within the public view. On the
contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not merely relatives or
friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the
public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be
contrary to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran
Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the
application of this principle in para 15, below:"Also, even if
the remark is made inside a building, but some members of
the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then
also it would be an offence since it is in the public view."] .
The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28)
"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod
Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants
2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") when he stood
near the car which was parked at the gate of the
premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place
within public view, since the gate of a house is
certainly a place within public view. It could have
been a different matter had the alleged offence been
committed inside a building, and also was not in the
public view. However, if the offence is committed
outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house,
and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road
or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would
certainly be a place within the public view. Also,
even if the remark is made inside a building, but
some members of the public are there (not merely
relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence
since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not
confuse the expression "place within public view"
with the expression "public place". A place can be a
private place but yet within the public view. On the
other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a
place which is owned or leased by the Government
29
or the municipality (or other local body) or
gaonsabha or an instrumentality of the State, and
not by private persons or private bodies."
(emphasis in original)
15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the
informant were within the four walls of her building. It is
not the case of the informant that there was any member
of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of
the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient
that the words were uttered "in any place within public
view" is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to
the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could
not be said that those were the persons present within the
four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have
taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore,
in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran
Singh [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008)
3 SCC (Cri) 527] , it cannot be said to be a place within
public view as none was said to be present within the four
walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet.
16. There is a dispute about the possession of
the land which is the subject-matter of civil dispute
between the parties as per Respondent 2 herself.
Due to dispute, the appellant and others were not
permitting Respondent 2 to cultivate the land for the
last six months. Since the matter is regarding
possession of property pending before the civil court,
any dispute arising on account of possession of the
said property would not disclose an offence under
the Act unless the victim is abused, intimidated or
harassed only for the reason that she belongs to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
17. In another judgment reported as Khuman
Singh v. State of M.P. [Khuman Singh v. State of M.P.,
(2020) 18 SCC 763 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104], this
Court held that in a case for applicability of Section
3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased
belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough to
inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that
there was nothing to suggest that the offence was
30
committed by the appellant only because the
deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. The Court held
as under:
"15. As held by the Supreme Court, the
offence must be such so as to attract the offence
under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must
have been committed against the person on the
ground that such person is a member of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the
fact that the deceased was belonging to "Khangar"
Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no
evidence to show that the offence was committed
only on the ground that the victim was a member of
the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of
the appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable."
18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not
established merely on the fact that the informant is a
member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an
intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim
belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties
are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of
hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over
the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled
Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not
made out.
19. This Court in a judgment reported as Subhash
Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra [Subhash
Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC
454: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 124] issued certain directions in
respect of investigations required to be conducted under
the Act. In a review filed by the Union against the said
judgment, this Court in a judgment reported as Union of
India v. State of Maharashtra [Union of India v. State of
Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 686]
reviewed the directions issued by this Court and held that if
there is a false and unsubstantiated FIR, the proceedings
under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked. The Court
31
held as under: (Union of India case [Union of India v. State
of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri)
686], SCC p. 797, para 52)
"52. There is no presumption that the
members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes may misuse the provisions of law as a class
and it is not resorted to by the members of the
upper castes or the members of the elite class. For
lodging a false report, it cannot be said that the
caste of a person is the cause. It is due to the
human failing and not due to the caste factor. Caste
is not attributable to such an act. On the other hand,
members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes due to backwardness hardly muster the
courage to lodge even a first information report,
much less, a false one. In case it is found to be
false/unsubstantiated, it may be due to the faulty
investigation or for other various reasons including
human failings irrespective of caste factor. There
may be certain cases which may be false that can be
a ground for interference by the Court, but the law
cannot be changed due to such misuse. In such a
situation, it can be taken care of in proceeding under
Section 482 CrPC."
20. Later, while examining the constitutionality of
the provisions of the amending Act (Central Act 27 of
2018), this Court in a judgment reported as Prathvi Raj
Chauhan v. Union of India [Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of
India, (2020) 4 SCC 727: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 657] held
that proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the
Code. It was held as under: (SCC p. 751, para 12)
"12. The Court can, in exceptional cases,
exercise power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing
the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled
parameters, as already observed while deciding the
review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no
argument to the contrary has been raised."
21. In Gorige Pentaiah [Gorige Pentaiah v. State of
A.P., (2008) 12 SCC 531 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 446] , one of
32
the arguments raised was non-disclosure of the caste
of the accused but the facts were almost similar as
there was civil dispute between parties pending and
the allegation was that the accused has called abuses
in the name of the caste of the victim. The High Court
herein has misread the judgment of this Court in Ashabai
Machindra Adhagale [Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of
Maharashtra, (2009) 3 SCC 789 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 20] as
it was not a case about the caste of the victim but the fact
that the accused was belonging to upper caste was not
mentioned in the FIR. The High Court of Bombay had
quashed the proceedings for the reason that the caste of the
accused was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence
under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is not made out. In an
appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, this
Court held that this will be the matter of investigation as to
whether the accused either belongs to or does not belong to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High
Court erred in law to dismiss the quashing petition relying
upon later larger Bench judgment.
22. The appellant had sought quashing of the charge-
sheet on the ground that the allegation does not make out
an offence under the Act against the appellant merely
because Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste since the
property dispute was not on account of the fact that
Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes
between a vulnerable section of the society and a person of
upper caste will not disclose any offence under the Act
unless, the allegations are on account of the victim being a
Scheduled Caste. Still further, the finding that the appellant
was aware of the caste of the informant is wholly
inconsequential as the knowledge does not bar any person to
protect his rights by way of a procedure established by law.
23. This Court in a judgment reported as Ishwar
Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. [Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State
of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 612 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 818] held
that there is no prohibition under the law for quashing the
charge-sheet in part. In a petition filed under Section 482 of
the Code, the High Court is required to examine as to
whether its intervention is required for prevention of
33
abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice. The Court held as under : (SCC p. 618,
para 9)
"9. Having regard to the settled legal position on
external interference in investigation and the specific
facts of this case, we are of the view that the High Court
ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice. There is no
prohibition under law for quashing a charge-sheet in
part. A person may be accused of several offences under
different penal statutes, as in the instant case. He could
be aggrieved of prosecution only on a particular charge
or charges, on any ground available to him in law. Under
Section 482, all that the High Court is required to
examine is whether its intervention is required for
implementing orders under the Criminal Procedure Code
or for prevention of abuse of process, or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. A charge-sheet filed at the
dictate of somebody other than the police would amount
to abuse of the process of law and hence the High Court
ought to have exercised its inherent powers under
Section 482 to the extent of the abuse. There is no
requirement that the charge-sheet has to be quashed as
a whole and not in part. Accordingly, this appeal is
allowed. The supplementary report filed by the police, at
the direction of the Commission, is quashed."
24. In view of the above facts, we find that the charges
against the appellant under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are not
made out. Consequently, the charge-sheet to that extent is
quashed. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.""
(Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, the offences under the Act qua petitioners 2 to 4 are
necessarily to be obliterated.
34
OFFENCES UNDER THE IPC - PETITIONERS 2 TO 4:
13. The other offences alleged are the ones punishable under
Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. It is the case of the complainant that both the 1st
petitioner and the complainant elope and get married in Hassan and
began to live separately, without the parents being aware of the
fact that they had married at all. What demand or otherwise is
made by the husband right from 2019 till the date of registration of
the complaint, there is no iota of offence or ingredients of the
offence of demand of dowry and cruelty meted out on such demand
against petitioners 2 to 4 who are lugged in alleging offences
punishable under the Act.
14. The Apex Court has time and again cautioned
against the indiscriminate roping in of distant relations or
even the father-in-law and the mother-in-law in matrimonial
disputes, unless clear, specific and cogent allegations exist.
The present complaint is steeped in generalities and is bereft
of factual support. It undoubtedly falls within the ambit of
35
cautionary jurisprudence by the Apex Court. The Apex Court
in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR2 has
held as follows:
"Issue involved
10. Having perused the relevant facts and
contentions made by the appellants and respondents, in
our considered opinion, the foremost issue which
requires determination in the instant case is whether
allegations made against the appellant in-laws are in
the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore
liable to be quashed?
11. Before we delve into greater detail on the
nature and content of allegations made, it becomes
pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498-
AIPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon
a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating
rapid State intervention. However, it is equally true,
that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the
country has also increased significantly and there is a
greater disaffection and friction surrounding the
institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has
resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions
such as Section 498-AIPC as instruments to settle
personal scores against the husband and his relatives.
12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh
Sharma v. State of U.P. [Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P.,
(2018) 10 SCC 472: (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 301] , has observed :
(SCC pp. 478-79, para 14)
"14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute
with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands
of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly
when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or
murder of a woman as mentioned in the Statement of
2
(2022)6 SCC 599
36
Objects and Reasons of Act 46 of 1983. The expression
"cruelty" in Section 498-A covers conduct which may
drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury
(mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with
a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand.
[Explanation to Section 498-A.] It is a matter of serious
concern that large number of cases continue to be filed
under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married
women. We have already referred to some of the
statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had
earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are
filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many
of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing
of the complaint, implications and consequences are not
visualised. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for
harassment not only to the accused but also to the
complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of
settlement."
13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court
in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of
Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273: (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] , it was
also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4)
"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial
disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is
greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC was
introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of
harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and
his relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a
cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious
place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as
weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The
simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his
relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number
of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of
the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are
arrested."
14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC
667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed :
(SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36)
"32. It is a matter of common experience that
most of these complaints under Section 498-AIPC are
37
filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without
proper deliberations. We come across a large number of
such complaints which are not even bona fide and are
filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid
increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry
harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have
enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure
that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or
demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions
of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal
complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on
their advice or with their concurrence. The learned
members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession
must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every
complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem
and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in
arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem.
They must discharge their duties to the best of their
abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity
of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar
should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to
multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the
complaint the implications and consequences are not
properly visualised by the complainant that such
complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony
and pain to the complainant, accused and his close
relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the
truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To
find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these
complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and
all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At
times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is
difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment of husband's close relations
who had been living in different cities and never visited or
rarely visited the place where the complainant resided
would have an entirely different complexion. The
38
allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised
with great care and circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and protracted
criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in
the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of
common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant
if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in
jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an
amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering
is extremely long and painful."
15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta
Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741: (2013) 1 SCC
(Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed : (SCC p.
749, para 21)
"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note
of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V.
Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3
SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in a
matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High
Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a
matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been
roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed
and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with
which we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para 12)
'12. ... There has been an outburst of matrimonial
dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony,
the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple
to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in commission of
heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also
involved with the result that those who could have
counselled and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in
the criminal case. There are many other reasons which
need not be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over
their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by
mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of
law where it takes years and years to conclude and in
that process the parties lose their "young" days in
chasing their cases in different courts.'
39
The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the
courts would not encourage such disputes."
16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K.
Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019)
1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454,
para 6)
"6. ... The courts should be careful in proceeding
against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to
matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of
the husband should not be roped in on the basis of
omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their
involvement in the crime are made out."
17. The abovementioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances
expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC
and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of
the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing
the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant
as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the
said judgments that false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial
dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the
process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its
judgments has warned the courts from proceeding
against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when
no prima facie case is made out against them.
18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of
the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that
general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The
complainant alleged that "all accused harassed her mentally
and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy".
Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been
made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the
appellants have been attributed any specific role in
furtherance of the general allegations made against them.
This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain
the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence.
The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can
at best be said to have been made out on account of small
skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not
40
appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not
examined the veracity of allegations made against him.
However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the
allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do
not warrant prosecution.
19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of
harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous
FIR Respondent 1 i.e. the State of Bihar, contends that the
present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019,
after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before
the learned Principal Judge, Purnea, to not harass the
respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly.
However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their
demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the
acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in
question herein dated 1-4-2019, is distinct and independent,
and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated
11-12-2017.
20. Here it must be borne in mind that although
the two FIRs may constitute two independent
instances, based on separate transactions, the present
complaint fails to establish specific allegations against
the in-laws of the respondent wife. Allowing
prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against
the appellant in-laws would simply result in an abuse of
the process of law.
21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant
circumstances and in the absence of any specific role
attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust
if the appellants are forced to go through the
tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus
allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the
relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to
undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in
varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an
eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the
accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be
discouraged."
(Emphasis supplied)
41
15. Later, the Apex Court in the case of GHANSHYAM SONI
v. STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI)3 holds as follows:
".... .... ....
10. A perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations
made by the complainant are that in the year 1999, the
Appellant inflicted mental and physical cruelty upon her for
bringing insufficient dowry. The Complainant refers to few
instances of such atrocities, however the allegations are
generic, and rather ambiguous. The allegations against the
family members, who have been unfortunately roped in, is
that they used to instigate the Appellant husband to harass
the Complainant wife, and taunted the Complainant for not
bringing enough dowry; however, there is no specific
incident of harassment or any evidence to that effect.
Similarly, the allegations against the five out of six sisters
that they used to insult the Complainant and demanded
dowry articles from her, and upon failure beat her up, but
there is not even a cursory mention of the incident. An
allegation has also been made against a tailor named
Bhagwat that he being a friend of the Appellant instigated
him against the Complainant, and was allegedly instrumental
in blowing his greed. Such allegations are merely accusatory
and contentious in nature, and do not elaborate a concrete
picture of what may have transpired. For this reason alone,
and that the evidence on record is clearly inconsistent with
the accusations, the version of the Complainant seems
implausible and unreliable. The following observation in K.
Subba Rao v. State of Telangana Represented by Its
Secretary, Department of Home2, fits perfectly to the present
scenario:
"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding
against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to
matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of
the husband should not be roped in on the basis of
omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their
involvement in the crime are made out."
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301
42
11. As regards the Appellant, the purportedly
specific allegations levelled against him are also
obscure in nature. Even if the allegations and the case
of the prosecution is taken at its face value, apart from
the bald allegations without any specifics of time, date
or place, there is no incriminating material found by
the prosecution or rather produced by the complainant
to substantiate the ingredients of "cruelty" under
section 498A IPC, as recently observed in the case
of Jaydedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of
Gujarat3 and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar
Pradesh4. The Complainant has admittedly failed to
produce any medical records or injury reports, x-ray
reports, or any witnesses to substantiate her
allegations. We cannot ignore the fact that the
Complainant even withdrew her second Complaint dt.
06.12.1999 six days later on 12.12.1999. There is also
no evidence to substantiate the purported demand for
dowry allegedly made by the Appellant or his family
and the investigative agencies in their own prudence
have not added sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 to the chargesheet.
12. In this respect, the Sessions Court has applied its
judicial mind to the allegations in the FIR & the material on
record, and has rightly discharged the Appellants of the
offences under section 498A & 34 IPC. Notwithstanding the
said observation by the Sessions Court that the possibility of
false implication cannot be ruled out, the discharge of the
Appellant merely because the Complainant is a police officer
is erroneous and reflects poorly on the judicial decision
making, which must be strictly based on application of
judicial principles to the merits of the case. On the other
hand, the High Court vide the Impugned Order has
traversed one step further and overtly emphasised
that simply because the Complainant is a police
officer, it cannot be assumed that she could not have
been a victim of cruelty at the hands of her husband
and in-laws. We agree with the sensitive approach
adopted by the High Court in adjudicating the present
case, however a judicial decision cannot be blurred to
the actual facts and circumstances of a case. In this
debate, it is only reasonable to re-iterate that the
43
Sessions Court in exercise of its revisionary
jurisdiction and the High Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, must
delve into the material on record to assess what the
Complainant has alleged and whether any offence is
made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
In the present case, such scrutiny of the allegations in
the FIR and the material on record reveals that
no prima facie is made out against the Appellant or his
family. It is also borne from the record that the
divorce decree of their marriage, has already been
passed, and the same has never been challenged by
the Complainant wife, and hence has attained finality.
Upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and
that the alleged incidents pertain to the year 1999 and
since then the parties have moved on with their
respective lives, it would be unjust and unfair if the
Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of
a trial."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court has considered the entire spectrum of law.
Therefore, it would not become necessary to quote earlier
judgments rendered on the issue. Finding no ingredients of
offences under Section 498A of the IPC or under Section 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act against petitioners 2 to 4, further
proceeding cannot be permitted to be continued against them.
16. What remains, is the offence under Section 506 of the IPC
which punishes for criminal intimidation. Here again, there is
44
nothing that is found against petitioners 2 to 4 that would become
ingredients of criminal intimidation, as obtaining under Section 503
of the IPC which can become an offence under Section 506 of the
IPC. Therefore, none of the offences that have been attributed qua
petitioners 2 to 4 are attributable against them. Wherefore, the
offences so alleged against the petitioners 2 to 4 in its
entirety, crumbles under scrutiny. The complainant herself
acknowledges that the marital union of the 1st petitioner and
herself was clandestined and unbeknownst to the family.
Thus, the very predicate for implicating the parental figures,
in dowry harassment is palpably missing. In such
circumstances, permitting further proceedings would run foul of the
aforequoted judgments of the Apex Court and would amount to
fostering injustice.
OFFENCES AGAINST PETITIONER NO.1 - HUSBAND:
17. As regards the 1st petitioner - the complainant's husband,
the allegations are grave and specific, invoking not only the offence
of cruelty and voyeurism, but also serious offence under the POCSO
45
Act, including the offence of rape under Section 376 of the IPC.
The assertion is that these acts occurred prior to the marriage and
during a time when the complainant was allegedly a minor, which
mandates a full fledged trial. With the limited contours of
examination under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the truth of these
assertions cannot be devined and must be unravelled in a full blown
trial through crucible of evidence.
18. The allegations against the 1st petitioner/husband are the
offences punishable under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO
Act, Sections 376, 498A, 506 and 354C of the IPC and Section 66E
of the Information Technology Act. The offence under Section 354C
which deals with voyeurism is completely met in the case at hand,
as the allegation against the 1st petitioner is that, he has shot
videos and taken pictures of the complainant at inappropriate
times. This is the statement of the complainant also under Section
164 of the CrPC and findings in the charge sheet as well. Therefore,
the offence under Section 354C of the IPC is completely met in the
case at hand.
46
19. The other offence under Section 498A is, on the face of it,
met in the case at hand, as there are allegations of cruelty, demand
of dowry and the period has also been vividly narrated in the
complaint. Therefore, there can be no question of quashment of the
proceedings even under Section 498A of the IPC against the 1st
petitioner.
20. The other offences are the offences under the POCSO Act
and rape under Section 376 of the IPC. Whether these instances
have happened or otherwise is a matter of trial, as the allegations
of rape are not alleged post marriage, but all of which have been
alleged of the acts done on particular dates when the two had not
yet married. Therefore, it is for the 1st petitioner to come out
clean. If the allegations on evidence would emerge under Section
376 of the IPC that those acts have taken place after the marriage,
it would not become a crime. If they are before marriage, it is for
the concerned Court to consider the same.
21. Prima facie, all the offences alleged against the 1st
petitioner are required to be tried. Exercise of jurisdiction under
47
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the 1st petitioner cannot even be
imagined, as they are all in the realm of seriously disputed
questions of fact. Therefore, finding no merit to quash the
proceedings against the 1st petitioner, the petition qua the 1st
petitioner must necessarily fail. But the petition in respect of
petitioners 2 to 4 must succeed, as permitting further proceedings
against them would result in miscarriage of justice and becoming an
abuse of the process of law.
22. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition insofar as petitioners 2 to 4 is concerned, is allowed. Special C.C.No.1493 of 2024 registered against petitioners 2 to 4 stands quashed.
(ii) Criminal Petition qua 1st petitioner/husband is dismissed.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioners under Section 48 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against the 1st petitioner.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp CT:MJ