Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Channa Veeregowda vs State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2017

Author: K.N.Phaneendra

Bench: K.N.Phaneendra

                         1


     THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2017

                      BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA


        CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1162/2017

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI CHANNA VEEREGOWDA
       S/O DODDA VEEREGOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
       BSNL PHONE MECHANIC
       R/AT SHANTHINAGAR
       INFRONT OF IB K BETTAHALLI ROAD
       PANDAVAPURA TOWN

2.     SMT SARASWATHI
       W/O CHANNA VEEREGOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
       HOUSE WIFE
       R/AT SHANTINAGAR
       INFRONT OF IB K BETTAHALLI ROAD,
       PANDAVAPURA TOWN

3.     SMT C N UMA
       W/O B MURALIDHARA
       AGED ABOUTG 37 YEARS,
       HOUSE WIFE
       R/AT NO.65/A, 6TH MAIN ROAD
       KUVEMPU ROAD,
       PRAMODA LAYOUT
       BANGALORE-560003
                         2


      PARENTAL HOUSE
      SHATINAGAR
      INFRONT OF IB, BETTAHALLI ROAD,
      PANDAVAPURA TOWN

4.   SMT N C SUMA
     W/O K.C. KRISHNA
     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
     HOUSE WIFE
     R/AT NO.31, 3RD CROSS,
     ULLAL MAIN ROAD
     BANGALORE-560056
     PARENTAL HOUSE
     SHATINAGAR INFRONT OF IB, BETTAHALLI
     ROAD, PANDAVAPURA TOWN
                                  ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHANTARADDI S MULIMANI, ADV.)

AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY PANDAVAPURA POLICE STATION,
      MANDYA REP BY
      PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT
      BANGALORE-560 001

2.    SMT. C.S. PARIMALA
      D/O SWAMYGOWDA
      R/AT KYATANAHALLI VILLAGE
      PANDAVAPURA TALUK
      MANDYA DISTRICT
                                  ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANDESH J CHOUTA, SPP -II)

    CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FIR AND ENTIRE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CR.
NO.437/2011 IN C.C.NO.655/2012 FOR THE ALLEGED
                             3


OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,506,406 R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SEC.3,4 AND 6 OF D.P.ACT ON THE FILE OF JR. C.J.
AND J.M.F.C., PANDAVAPURA.

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON                      FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE                        THE
FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the records.

2. This petition is filed for quashing of the criminal case in C.C.No.655/2012 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura arising out of Crime No.437/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 406, read with 34 of IPC and also Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Brief factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 herein and accused No.1 are the husband and wife. Their marriage took place on 9.12.2004. There are some allegations with regard to demand of dowry and receipt of dowry at the time of 4 marriage and further demand of dowry after marriage. There are also certain allegations with regard to ill treatment and harassment for the purpose of extracting more dowry from respondent No.2 and her family members. On such allegations, the police have thoroughly investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 5 have also appeared before the trial court and contested the matter. Infact, they allowed the trial court to frame charges and to post the matter for trial. The trial court after hearing the parties has framed charges for the said offences and set down the case for evidence. The order sheet also discloses that the trial court also issued summons to secure the witness for examination. At this juncture, the present application is filed.

4. When the charges are already framed by the court and the said order is not challenged by the petitioners herein and when the mater is set down for 5 recording evidence and charge sheet papers disclose the allegations constituting the offence, the trial court has to conclude the trial after recording the evidence and at this stage, such proceedings cannot be quashed.

5. Under the above circumstances, I proceed to pass the following order:

Order The petition is dismissed. However, as the matter is pertaining to 2012, the trial court is directed to take up the matter and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE DM