Bangalore District Court
State By Mahalakshmi Layout vs Mohan Kumar @ B.K.Satish S/O on 3 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 03rd day of December 2021
PRESENT:
Sri S.Sreedhara, B.E., L L.B.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru
C.C. No.23466/2008
Complainant : State by Mahalakshmi Layout
Police, Bengaluru City
-V/s-
Accused : 1. Mohan Kumar @ B.K.Satish s/o
Late Kadegowda, 36 yrs,
2. Nanjamma w/o Late Kadegowda,
62 yrs,
A1 & A2 are R/at No.459, 12th Cross,
West of Chord Road, 2nd Stage,
Mahalakshmipura, Bengaluru-86.
3. Radha w/o Krishnamurthy, 52 yrs,
4. B.Krishnamurthy s/o Late
Boranna, 54 yrs,
2 CC No.23466/2008
A2 and A3 are R/at No.1026/B, 71st A
Cross, 5th Block, Rajajinagara,
Bengaluru-10.
Date of offence : Prior to 23/04/1998
Offences complained of : Section 415, 417, 420
read with 34, 120(B) IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Accused Persons
Acquitted
Date of Judgment : 03/12/2021
J U D G M E N T UNDER SECTION 355 of Cr.P.C.
The Police Inspector of Mahalakshmi Layout Police
Station, Bengaluru has submitted charge sheet against
accused No-1 to 4 for the offences punishable under
Section 415, 417, 420 read with 34 and 120(B) of IPC and
thereby requested the court to punish accused for the said
offences.
2. The brief allegations of prosecution is that the
marriage of CW1 B.S.Rekha was performed with accused
No-1 on 23/04/1998. At the time of marriage, the accused
No-1 to 4 have made a criminal conspiracy and
3 CC No.23466/2008
represented that accused No-1 is a Qualified Engineer,
even though he has not obtained Engineering Degree. The
accused No-1 to 4 by posing accused No-1 as a Qualified
Engineer have cheated the complainant. Accordingly the
I.O. has requested the court to punish the accused in
accordance with law.
3. The complainant No-1 and 2 have filed a private
complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Learned
VII A.C.M.M. Court, Bengaluru and the same is registered
as PCR No.9089/2008. The Learned Court after verifying
the records has ordered for investigation as per Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. The accused persons have appeared
before the Learned Court and they are enlarged on bail.
The copies of charge sheet are furnished to the accused.
4. After hearing arguments, the Learned Court has
framed Charge against accused for the alleged offences,
read over and explained in the language known to them.
The accused did not pleads guilty, but claims to be tried.
5. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of
accused persons has examined in all three witnesses as
PW1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to 16 documents. The
4 CC No.23466/2008
prosecution has not got marked any material objects on its
behalf.
6. Then the case was transferred to this court as per
Notification No.ADM 1(A) 09/2020 dated 05/06/2020.
After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused
statement as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was
recorded, where they have totally denied the entire
evidence of prosecution witnesses, but did not choose to
adduce any defence evidence on their behalf. However the
accused persons have got marked Ex.D1 to 24 documents
during the cross-examination of PW1 and 2.
7. The learned Sr.APP has submitted that his
arguments may be taken as heard. The learned counsel for
accused No-1 has submitted his written arguments and
relied upon the following decisions.
1) 2018 (1) KCCR 66 (Tarun Varma and
Others V/s State of Karnataka)
2) AIR 2015 SC 1758 (Mrs. Priyanka
Srivastava and Anr. V/s State of U.P. and
Ors.)
5 CC No.23466/2008
3) (2011) 7 SCC 59 (Joseph Salvaraj.A. V/s
State of Gujarat & Others)
4) Criminal Appeal No.994/2018 (SC)
(Anupriya Pal & Others V/s State of U.P. &
Anr.)
8. Heard the arguments of Sri SSM, Advocate for
accused No-2 to 4.
9. On the basis of available materials on record, the
following points arise for my consideration-
1) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that the
accused No-1 to 4 at the time of
marriage of CW1 B.S.Rekha have
made a criminal conspiracy to commit
an offence and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section
120(B) of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution further
proves beyond all reasonable doubt
the accused No-1 to 4 with common
6 CC No.23466/2008
intention have represented that the
accused No-1 is a Qualified Engineer
and thereby induced the complainant
and her father to give valuable articles
as dowry and thereby cheated them
and hence committed the offences
punishable under Section 415, 417
read with 34 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution further
proves beyond all reasonable doubt
that in furtherance of common
intention, the accused have induced
the complainant and her father to
deliver valuable articles by
representing that accused No-1 is a
Qualified Engineer and thereby
cheated them and hence committed an
offence punishable under Section 420
read with 34 of IPC?
4) What Order?
7 CC No.23466/2008
10. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, my answers to the above points are as
under for the following reasons.
Point No-1 to 3 : In the Negative
Point No-4 : As per final order
REASONS
Point No-1 to 3:
11. Since all these points are inter connected, they
are taken up together for consideration to avoid repetition
of discussion.
12. The complainant and her father have filed a
private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the
Learned VII ACMM Court by alleging that the marriage of
complainant was performed with accused No-1 on
23/04/1998. Before marriage, the marriage negotiations
were held by the elders of family and the same was settled
on 19/01/1998. At the time of negotiations, the accused
have represented to the complainants and their family that
the first accused is a Qualified Mechanical Engineer. The
complainant No-2 being a Government Servant was
searching for a well educated person for his daughter and
he has agreed for the alliance by believing that the accused
8 CC No.23466/2008
No-1 is a Qualified Mechanical Engineer. If the accused
No-1 was not an Engineer, then the complainants and their
family would not have agreed for the marriage. The
accused persons have made dowry demands by stating that
accused No-1 is a Qualified Engineer. The complainant
No-2 by believing the same gave a Car, Gold Jewelry,
Silver Articles, Furniture, Pooja Articles, Wedding Suit,
Golden Chain, Ring, Bracelet and other household articles,
totally worth of Rs.6 lakhs. He has also spent a sum of
Rs.1.5 lakhs towards the marriage celebration. The
complainant No-2 has intended to give a car to accused
No-1 in the name of his daughter, but the accused No-1
has not agreed for it. Then he has approached Canara Bank
for the grant of loan to purchase Maruti Car, where the
accused No-1 has mentioned his qualification as B.E.
(Mechanical). The Car was purchased by borrowing the
loan and he has repaid the loan amount to the bank. The
accused No-1 has caused dowry harassment to the
complainant No-1 and driven her out from his house on
28/10/2001 at 10.00 p.m. along with her daughter Pavithra.
Then a case was registered against the accused in
CC No.1638/2002. The accused No-1 has produced a
Salary Certificate dated 07/03/2001 in which he is not
9 CC No.23466/2008
shown as a Qualified Engineer. He has obtained
anticipatory bail orders in Criminal Mis. No.2256/2001
and also filed MC No.1659/2001 by representing himself
as an Engineering Graduate. The above proceedings
clearly discloses that the accused No-1 himself has
claimed that he is an Engineer even though he has not
completed the Degree. If the accused persons have not
represented that accused No-1 is a Qualified Mechanical
Engineer, then they would not have agreed for the
marriage alliance with the accused No-1. The accused
persons by making misrepresentation have demanded and
received valuable articles by way of dowry from the
complainants. Thereby the accused persons have
committed the alleged offences and they have extracted
money, articles such as Car, golden ornaments, silver
articles, household articles. The accused No-3 and 4 have
hatched a criminal conspiracy to facilitate accused No-1
and 2 to cheat the complainants and succeeded to extract
huge amount from them. Hence they have requested the
court to take cognizance of the alleged offences and punish
the accused in accordance with law.
10 CC No.23466/2008
13. The Learned VII ACMM Court has referred the
matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to
the jurisdictional police. After conducting investigation,
the jurisdictional police have submitted charge sheet to the
court against accused persons. The learned counsel for
accused No-1 has relied upon the decisions in 2018 (1)
KCCR 66, AIR 2015 SC 1758, (2011) 7 SCC 59 and
Criminal Appeal No.994/2018 (SC) and submitted that
the private complaint lodged by complainants is not at all
maintainable as per the ratio laid down in the above
decisions. The allegations made in the complaint clearly
discloses that the complainants before approaching the
court have not exhausted the available remedy as per
Section 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. At the same time,
the complainants in this case have not filed any supporting
affidavit in support of the allegations made in the
complaint. Their Lordships in the above decisions have
quashed the FIR lodged by police on the ground that the
complainant has not exhausted the remedy available under
Section 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C.
14. In the present case on hand, the jurisdictional
police has registered FIR against accused on the basis of
11 CC No.23466/2008
reference made by the Learned VII ACMM Court. The
accused persons have not approached the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka by invoking the provisions of Section
482 of Cr.P.C. in order to quash the proceedings. The ratio
laid down in the above decisions clearly discloses that the
complainant has to take action under Section 154(1) and
154(3) of Cr.P.C. before filing an application under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., which is not complied by the
complainants in this case. However, the accused persons
have not taken action under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by
challenging the FIR registered by the jurisdictional police.
On the other hand, the prosecution has proceeded to lead
evidence on its behalf and the stage is to pass judgment on
merits. With due respect to their Lordships, the accused
persons cannot take the advantage of the ratio laid down in
the above decisions, since they have not invoked the
provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
15. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of
accused has examined PW1 to 3 on its behalf and got
marked Ex.P1 to 16 documents. The accused while cross-
examining PW1 and 2 have got marked Ex.D1 to 24
12 CC No.23466/2008
documents, but they have not adduced defence evidence
on their behalf.
16. PW1 B.S.Rekha in her evidence has stated that
on 19/01/1998, all the accused persons came to their house
for marriage negotiations and at that time, they have
insisted for dowry by representing that accused No-1 is an
Mechanical Engineer. On the representation made by
accused persons, they have agreed for marriage alliance
and gave 750 grams of gold, 2 kgs of silver, bracelet, ring,
chain, household articles to the accused persons. Then
after 2 or 3 months, they gave a Car to the accused and the
accused persons have cheated them by representing that
accused No-1 is a Mechanical Engineer. Similarly
accused No-1 by furnishing false documents has also
cheated her. Hence she has requested the court to punish
the accused in accordance with law.
17. PW2 Basavegowda who is the father of PW1 in
his evidence has stated that accused No-1 is his son-in-
law, accused No-2 is the mother of accused No-1 and
accused No-3 and 4 are the relatives of accused No-1. He
has submitted an application through his advocate on
13 CC No.23466/2008
17/03/2008 to Bangalore University and received
information that accused No-1 is not a B.E. Graduate. The
accused persons at the time of marriage negotiations
represented that accused No-1 is a B.E. Graduate and
received dowry. The accused persons in Crime
No.2256/2001 have admitted that they have received
dowry at the time of marriage. The accused No-1 has also
admitted before the Family Court in MC No.1659/2001
that the complainants gave dowry after believing that he is
a B.E. Graduate. He has further stated that they have
performed the marriage of his daughter with accused No-1
by believing that he is an Engineering Graduate.
18. The learned counsels for accused have cross-
examined PW1 and 2 in detail and got marked Ex.D1 to 24
documents. The accused have totally denied the
allegations made against them while cross-examining PW1
and 2. PW1 and 2 have denied the suggestion that they
have lodged a false case against them only to cause
harassment.
14 CC No.23466/2008
19. PW3 S.Nagaraju in his evidence has stated that
he was working as P.I. of Mahalakshmi Layout P.S. since
from 01/07/2008 to 07/07/2009. He has continued the
investigation after receiving the records from CW4. The
accused persons have appeared before him on 18/08/2008
and he has recorded their voluntary statements. He has
written a letter to Bangalore University on 14/09/2008
about the Educational Qualification of accused No-1 and
received report on 23/09/2008. He has recorded the
statement of complainant B.S.Rekha on 04/12/2008. He
has identified Ex.P16 document and further stated that he
has submitted the charge sheet against accused persons. In
his cross-examination, he has clearly admitted that the
complainants have not lodged any complaint to the police
station before filing private complaint in the court.
Thereby it is revealed that the complainants have not
complied the requirements of Section 154(1) and (3) of
Cr.P.C. He has admitted the suggestion that as per Ex.P16
document, the Bangalore University has informed that
accused No-1 has not completed B.E. Degree. He has not
recorded the statement of the author of Ex.P16 document.
He has admitted the suggestion that the accused persons in
their voluntary statement have stated that the complainants
15 CC No.23466/2008
and their family have agreed to perform the marriage of
their daughter with accused No-1 after knowing that
accused No-1 has not completed B.E. Degree. He has not
enquired the neighbours of accused and complainant. He
has denied the suggestion that the complainant No-2 has
influenced him to register the FIR against the accused. He
has pleaded ignorance about the suggestion that
complainant No-2 has produced the documents before the
court without his knowledge. He has denied the
suggestion that he has created Ex.P16 document for the
purpose of case.
20. The prosecution has got marked Ex.P1 to 16
documents on its behalf. Ex.P1 is the Xerox Copy of
Letter written by one Sri P.N.Ramesh, Advocate to
Bangalore University on 07/03/2008 by requesting to
furnish the details about the educational qualification of
accused No-1. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of report
submitted by Bangalore University where it is stated that
Satish.B.K. has not completed Bachelor of Engineering.
Ex.P3 is the certified copy of Wedding Card. Ex.P4 is the
certified copy of Loan Application Form in which also the
educational qualification of accused No-1 is shown as
16 CC No.23466/2008
"B.E. MECH". Ex.P5 is the certified copy of Certificate
issued by B Square Exporters by certifying that B.K.Satish
is working as Engineer for the last 2 years. Ex.P6 is the
certified copy of private complaint filed before the court.
Ex.P7 is the Xerox copy of Salary Certificate relating to
accused No-1. Ex.P8 is the certified copy of Application
filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by accused No-1 to 4 of
this case. In para No.7 of Ex.P8, it is stated that the
petitioner No-1 Mohan Kumar is an Engineer. Ex.P9 is the
certified copy of objections filed by prosecution to the said
application. Ex.P10 is the certified copy of orders passed
by Hon'ble Court through which the anticipatory bail
orders is granted to the accused. Ex.P11 is the certified
copy of charge sheet in CC No.16384/2002, Ex.P12 is the
certified copy of objection statement filed by one
Nanjamma (A2) in Crime No.278/2001. Ex.P13 is the
certified copy of Petition filed in MC No.1659/2001. The
accused No-1 has also filed Affidavit in the said Petition,
which is marked as Ex.P14. Ex.P15 is the certified copy
of orders passed on IA in MC No.1659/2001. The visiting
card is marked as Ex.P16, in which also the accused No-
1's name is shown as B.K.Satish, B.E. (MECH). The
prosecution has once again got marked the Letter issued by
17 CC No.23466/2008
Bangalore University through the evidence of PW3 as
Ex.P16, in which also it is stated that accused No-1 has not
completed his degree. Except producing Ex.P1 to 16, the
prosecution has not produced any materials to prove the
allegations made against the accused.
21. The accused persons while cross-examining PW1
have got marked Ex.D1 to 17 documents and they have
also got marked Ex.D17 to 24 through the cross-
examination of PW2. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of
judgment passed in RFA No.16/2009, which discloses that
the complainants and wife of complainant No-2 have
withdrawn the said appeal. Ex.D2 and 3 are the certified
copies of Memorandums filed by complainant No-1
against accused No-1 in MFA No.10351/2012 and
10394/2012 respectively. Ex.D4 is the certified copy of
order sheet relating to MFA No.10351/2012 C/W
10394/2012 and the order sheet dated 23/10/2013 is
marked as Ex.D4(a). Ex.D5 is the copy of notice issued in
Criminal Appeal No.496/2018. Ex.D6 is the Xerox copy of
Appeal Memo relating to Criminal Appeal No.1242/2016.
Ex.D7 is the certified copy of judgment and decree passed
in OS No.4424/2004 dated 23/05/2011. On perusal of
18 CC No.23466/2008
Ex.D7, it is revealed that the complainant No-1 and her
daughter have filed a suit for partition and separate
possession against accused No-1 and 2. After holding a
trial, the Hon'ble Court has decreed the Suit of the
complainants.
22. Ex.D8 is the certified copy of orders passed in
Crime No.278/2002, which discloses that the Learned VII
ACMM has allowed the interim application filed by
accused No-1 claiming the interim custody of seized
vehicle. The complainant No-1 has challenged the said
orders before the Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge in Criminal Revision Petition No.347/2002 and the
same was dismissed as per Ex.D9 orders. The Hon'ble
Court in Para No.2 of Ex.D9 has discussed about the
contention raised by complainant No-1 B.S.Rekha. On
perusal of the same, it is revealed that the complainant No-
1 has lodged complaint before the police by stating that the
accused at the time of marriage has demanded and
accepted the dowry in the form of gold ornaments, cash
and a Maruti Car and then subjected her to cruelty. The
said observations made by Hon'ble Court clearly discloses
that the complainant No-1 has only stated that accused No-
19 CC No.23466/2008
1 has demanded and accepted the dowry at the time of
marriage. On the contrary she has not alleged that the
accused along with his mother, uncle and aunt have
misrepresented the complainant and her family by stating
that accused No-1 is a Qualified Engineer and therefore
demanded the dowry from them. When the complainant
B.S.Rekha has not at all stated that the accused persons
have received dowry by making them to believe that the
accused No-1 is a Qualified Engineer, then the allegations
made by her in the private complaint cannot be accepted.
23. Ex.D10 is the certified copy of orders passed by
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Pet.
No.1933/2004, which discloses that the complainant
B.S.Rekha has challenged the orders passed as per Ex.D9.
The same was dismissed on 01/12/2005. Ex.D11 is the
certified copy of judgment passed in OS No.1754/2003
filed by the complainant No-1, 2 and the wife of
complainant No-2 against the present accused No-1. On
perusal of Ex.D11, it is revealed that the present
complainants and one Smt. Susheelamma have approached
the court for the relief of declaration that they are the
owners of Maruti Car bearing No.KA 02 N 5587 and also
20 CC No.23466/2008
sought for possession of the vehicle from accused No-1
Mohan Kumar. The Hon'ble Court in Para No.2 of its
judgment has discussed about the contentions raised by the
plaintiffs (complainants and wife of complainant No-2).
Accordingly it is revealed that the plaintiffs have
contended that negotiations were held with the defendant
and his relatives in respect of the marriage of plaintiff
No.3 and same was settled on 19/01/1998. It is also
contended that the defendant and his relatives at the time
of marriage negotiations have demanded a Site, Sum of
Rs.5 lakhs, Car, Gold, Silver Articles, Furniture, Pooja
Articles, Clothes and Other Household Articles in the form
of dowry. It is also contended that the plaintiffs have
agreed for the dowry demand made by the defendant and
his relatives. Except the above contentions, the plaintiffs in
the said suit i.e., the complainant No-1 and 2 of this case
along with Smt. Susheelamma have not contended that the
defendant and his relatives have demanded the dowry by
misrepresenting that the defendant is a Qualified Engineer.
24. The complainant No-1 has filed Criminal
Revision Petition in the year 2002 as per Ex.D9 and the
complainant No-1, 2 along with Smt. Susheelamma have
21 CC No.23466/2008
filed a Suit for Declaration and Possession in the year
2003 as per Ex.D11 documents. In the said Criminal
Revision Petition and also in the said Civil Suit, they have
not alleged that accused No-1 to 4 have misrepresented at
the time of marriage negotiations that accused No-1 is a
Qualified Engineer and thereby demanded dowry. When
the complainants have not at all raised such contention in
the earlier court proceedings, then they cannot raise the
same at the time of filing the present private complaint.
Thereby it is very clear that the complainants have raised
such false contentions for the first time only at the time of
filing the present private complaint. Ex.D9 and D11
documents are helpful for the accused to prove that they
have not misrepresented the complainants by stating that
accused No-1 is a Qualified Engineer at the time of
marriage.
25. Ex.D12 is the certified copy of Judgment passed
in MFA No.5628/2003 where the present complainants
and Smt. Susheelamma have challenged the orders passed
on IA No.1 in OS No.1764/2003 and the said appeal came
to be rejected. Ex.D13 is the certified copy of Judgment
passed in Criminal Appeal No.1242/2016 filed by accused
22 CC No.23466/2008
No-1 by challenging the conviction Judgment passed in
CC No.16384/2002. The Hon'ble Court after hearing the
arguments on merits has set aside the conviction judgment
passed by the trial court in CC No.16384/2002. Ex.D13
further discloses that the complainant B.S.Rekha has
lodged a complaint against accused No-1 Mohan Kumar
for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 323 IPC
by making allegations about the dowry. The Hon'ble Court
in Para No.19 of its Judgment has observed that there is no
evidence forthcoming from the prosecution to prove that
there was any demand of dowry from accused No-1 and
thereby received dowry in cash or by way of any articles.
Ex.D13 Judgment clearly discloses that the accused No-1
was acquitted for the alleged offences by holding that the
prosecution has failed to prove the allegation made about
dowry demands.
26. In this case also the complainants have
seriously alleged that they have agreed for the marriage
proposal only when the accused persons have represented
that accused No-1 is a Qualified Engineer. They have also
alleged that the complainant No-2 gave valuable articles to
the accused No-1 in the form of dowry by believing the
23 CC No.23466/2008
words of accused persons. When the Hon'ble Court has
negatived the allegations made against accused No-1
about the receipt of dowry as per Ex.D13, then the
contention raised by the complainants that the accused
have received the dowry by making them to believe that
accused No-1 is a Qualified Engineer cannot be accepted.
27. Ex.D14 is the certified copy of Judgment passed
in CC No.23142/2005 which discloses that the
complainant No-1 has lodged complaint against accused
No-1 and the same was ended in acquittal. Ex.D15 is the
Xerox copy of Marriage Invitation. Ex.D16 is the
Certificate issued by Bangalore Institute of Technology
where it is certified that accused No-1 has studied B.E.
Degree Course in Mechanical Engineering. Ex.D17
consists of certified copy of wedding card and the
deposition of complainant No-2 recorded in CC
No.16384/2002. Again the certified copy of deposition of
complainant No-2 is marked as Ex.D21. Ex.D18 and 19
are the certified copies of Marriage Invitations, Ex.D20 is
the list of witnesses. Ex.D22 is the certified copy of letter
issued by the University to Sri PNR, Advocate. Ex.D23 is
24 CC No.23466/2008
the copy of FIR and Ex.D24 is the copy of Judgment
passed in CC No.16384/2002.
28. The above documents produced on both sides
clearly discloses that there are previous litigations between
the accused persons and complainants since from the year
2002. When the complainants have made allegation that
the accused persons have misrepresented that accused No-
1 is a Qualified Engineer at the time of marriage
negotiations and by believing the same, the complainants
have agreed for the marriage alliance, then the burden lies
upon them to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt.
The complainants have filed many complaints, civil suit
against the accused persons before lodging the present
complaint. In the earlier court proceedings, the
complainants have not at all raised such contentions
against the accused. As such the allegations made against
accused that they have cheated the complainants and
induced them to deliver any property to the accused cannot
be accepted. Moreover the allegations made against
accused about receipt of valuable articles, in the form of
dowry has already been negatived by the Hon'ble Court as
per Judgment passed in Ex.D13.
25 CC No.23466/2008
29. By considering the available materials before the
court, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond all
reasonable doubt. In the result, I answer Point No-1 to 3 in
the Negative.
Point No-4:
30. In view of my finding to Point No-1 to 3 as
above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
a) Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No-1 to 4 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 415, 417, 420 and 120(B) read with 34 of IPC.
b) The bail and surety bonds of accused shall continue for a period of six months, as per Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Stenographer. The transcript thereof is revised, corrected and then pronounced by me on this day i.e., 03/12//2021) (S.Sreedhara), Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
26 CC No.23466/2008ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
PW1 : B.S.Rekha
PW2 : Basavegowda
PW3 : S.Nagaraju
List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P1 : Copy of Letter written to Bangalore University through Advocate Ex.P2 : Certified Copy of Reply Letter to Ex.P1 written by Bangalore University Ex.P3 : Certified Copy of Marriage Invitation Card Ex.P4 : Certified Copy of Application for Car Loan Ex.P5 : Certified Copy of Certificate Ex.P6 : Private Complaint (Certified Copy) Ex.P7 : Salary Certificate (Copy) Ex.P8 : Certified Copy of Anticipatory Bail Application in Criminal Mis.
No.2256/2001 27 CC No.23466/2008 Ex.P9 : Certified Copy of Objections filed by Prosecution to Ex.P8 Ex.P10 : Certified Copy of Orders in Criminal Mis.
No.2256/2001 Ex.P11 : Certified Copy of Charge Sheet in CC No.16384/2002 Ex.P12 : Certified Copy of Objection Statement filed by A2 in Crime No.278/2001 Ex.P13 : Copy of Petition in MC No.1659/2001 Ex.P14 : Certified Copy of Affidavit filed by A1 in MC No.1659/2001 Ex.P15 : Certified Copy of Orders on I.A. in MC No.1659/2001 Ex.P16 : Visiting Card (Marked through the evidence of PW1) Ex.P16 : Letter issued by Bangalore University (Marked through the evidence of PW3) List of Material objects produced:-
NIL 28 CC No.23466/2008 List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Witnesses Examined None Documents Marked Ex.D1 : Certified Copy of Judgment in RFA No.16/2009 Ex.D2 : Certified Copy of Memorandum in MFA No.10351/2012 Ex.D3 : Certified Copy of Memorandum in MFA No.10394/2012 Ex.D4 : Certified Copies of Orders Sheets in MFA No.10351/2012 & 10394/2012 Ex.D4(a) : Order Sheet dated 23/10/2013 (Page No.28 in Ex.D4) Ex.D5 : Copy of Notice in Criminal Appeal No.496/2018 Ex.D6 : Copy of Criminal Appeal Memorandum Ex.D7 : Certified Copy of Judgment and Decree in OS No.4424/2004 Ex.D8 : Certified Copy of Orders in Crime No.278/2002 (CC No.16384/2002) Ex.D9 : Certified Copy of Orders in Criminal Rev. Petition No.347/2002 29 CC No.23466/2008 Ex.D10 : Certified Copy of Orders in Criminal Pet. No.1933/2004 Ex.D11 : Certified Copy of Judgment in OS No.1764/2003 Ex.D12 : Certified Copy of Judgment in MFA No.5628/2003 Ex.D13 : Certified Copy of Judgment in CRL. A. No.1242/2016 Ex.D14 : Certified Copy of Judgment in CC No.23142/2005 Ex.D15 : Copy of Marriage Invitation Ex.D16 : Certificate issued by Bangalore Institute of Technology Ex.D17 : Certified Copy of Wedding Card (marked in the evidence of PW1), Certified Copy of Deposition of PW2 Basavegowda in CC No.16384/2002 (marked in the evidence of PW2 Ex.D18, 19: Copies of Marriage Invitations Ex.D20 : List of Witnesses Ex.D21 : Copy of Deposition of PW2 in CC No.16384/2002 Ex.D21(a) : Partion of Deposition Ex.D22 : Certified Copy of Letter Ex.D23 : Copy of FIR in Crime No.144/2008 Ex.D24 : Copy of Judgment in CC No.16384/2002 C.M.M., BENGALURU.