Karnataka High Court
Smt.Aruna G Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2011
se gf a at RE RUA SINCE WO set Vi AY PRATAP SWOH AGED ABOHUT 63 YEARS _ a = 5 omen NOS 4 & & ANE R/O NO.GG, 2°" FLOOR, M neenalt MALVIYA WAGAR. HEAR POoT POPFFICE, NEW OELHI, . RT OF RARMATOKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C ie 6. SHI VIJAY PRE oes SING S/O PADAM SI 7 AGED ABOUT € ov vEARS. yO FLAT NO. 202, RE LIAR io COMPLEX TROOT PBAZAAR . HYDERABAD. . PETITIONERS . THE ate TH 2 OF KARNATAKA BS SreP tee HB Sa BME Ee A RO ERPS LWA bE BEM EO gh Be bd TERE F (THROUGH BYAPPANAHALLI POLICE STATION] RE ORESER ITE BY HGH COURT PUBLIC | PROSECUTOR "HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA \ BANGALORE. : 2. SMT PRACHI SINGH PATIL W/O RAHUL.G, PATIL D/O DR. MB SINGH ; AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O PLAT NO TP- EPO PRAGATT ONYX APARTME RT ty PEPE a ry wee fEYe B SRO ae. oS, LAKE F (OAD, BYRANSAN LABn A, HCE ae ATA A KAR he # LEU E OF riko hE WAU EP UP RARMALARA Fight &, AP PROTEC ETA SS, PEERS ES ROSS ASE G < ea £ =
2 = % = = 2 "3 # Po Yes enh Rat BE fA Med CV BRAMAN NAGAR GARD BANGALORE ~ 360 G93, (BY Bel: SATISH EK GIRLIT, HCOGP FOR Ei) os (BY SMT PRAMILA SENOIOK COUNS SERLSHAN RARABPPA, AIDVOCATE FC THIS CRIMINAL PETITION 18 FLED uss. 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT, HIS HON'BLE cour MAY BE PLEASED QUASH TRE. COME LAINT AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ~ PURSUANT COMPLIANT | --_ CRIME 4 NG. 69/2009 BY THE HYAPPAN Anat POLICE 3 TATION WITH RESPECT TO SEMEN SRL R CARLEL G PATIL hee LATE € GURAWART SINGH PATIL ge OS ee se, Eee SD i EFLE SD JOR BADD: DA ARBAR HOUSE NO.28 MAL AARAS one Te.
Se SPE ar Eh TY aoe DES LEA Bede Be aH Oe KAN MATAICA by] PHAGIN GASU P Oe hab eae ge oA PEP) ALAS § SA PAS, Lai EELS EN OE Tented RE ES b tag BE & BUMS ESA FBI A ETE Soo teat bet BRE Aht I"
"AEE RBS RE OE PETIMONE © (ACCUSED NQ.1) AN ANTS:
Sooo THE STATE OF KARNATAKA a (THROUGH BYAPPANAHALLI POLICE of A [ON é) REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT PUBLIC | PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE. . a 3, SMY PRACHI SINGH PATEL W/O RAHUL G PATIL ~- D/O DR MB SINGH GED ABOUT 27 YEARS AGED R/O FLAT NOTE -- ey PRAGAT ONVYA APART TMB} We S80 CROSS, LAKE ROAD, BYRANSANDR - ic ¥ RAMAN WAGAR WARD BANGALS CRE - S60 Mean (BY SRE: ss \TISH R GIRL, HC GP FOR R.1) BY SMT. PRAMLA, & SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR RQ} ORD, THIS CE tL. FILED 1 UNDER SECTION #85 DPC : BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING VSIA a THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED) D> QWUASH THE COMPLIANT AND ALL FURTHER Ps PROCEEDINGS In CRIME BO.O9/ 2009 GE Fao! tat tad PED Lat BE Saale A RY Or ARS ATARAG Mm CGRE ef OATES GAR TIP ROR MALAI Mitr KUNE Ob KARMATAICA MIGH COURT OF KARMATAKA HIG a eae "filed "the coniplaint before the Byay THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE ¢ ORAS GON . RAY. . THE court :
net aad ek a These two petitions arise out of { Crimes No. 6} 20e Byappenahalli police station, Bangalore "eiy registered on 18.63.2009 for. the offences purie sable U/s.498-A, 806 of IAC are & Sectic on 3S Ks + OF. ews; yf Prohibition Ast,
2. The purties are referred in these petitions accerding to thelr ranking inthe FIN. The petitiener in & CrLP.i7a7f2010 is Accused No.l and petitioners in Cri.P.5682/ 2009 are Accused No.2 to 7.
3. Poe complainant of "e Sintcrecni Sigh Pati hes 4 place. with eccused No.l on 04.12.2007 at Am Force
- Audiorum, Diwule Kuan, New Delhi ard orior te the ,& TORR Ceremony wee nee mi Naonbel on as Ae * HOARACERAR A MEG Pt Mn, % Hat Miiheri (oe Byte ER EPA EBA TS, al R ba mE Ete Get bel FR Be eo RE Bok a, Baul EMMI sot a Set EY PUPRM GAL PAE BRA "Bowe ¢ By, yee Sy atte, at ook #4 3, me Bie Pm ny Bee 6G UR OS Oe Pye S . See < SF as sucess Bs rat sistas , et O7 09.2007. Thereafter, even before the marriage "as Thereafter, on riage efigagement~ te Pte ed set luc, Hew Peend's colory, New Sek tee : ' BOW uses aumceoremne et E lace pn: New PFryerid's By Delhi amd subsequently marriage took place. It ie atated by her that, at the time of maerriage her father erei wrether have epert a guict of 7.18.00,000/- es marnage $2 ie: sete, & --_ Po, tre di&taile of expenses arc 2.) 58 . g 7 | 4 bag. e. e & . go . . & 7 4 ho Bes, ot that jewellary at item No.l.to 11 were given to the seprarieg-epen Boag Soe Say i 4. Bee aeanee guages nvm a 2. suk . thea oe commueiraict by ber parents erul ber relative: at tue time crate "seend ag ow tele dy "Sesome ate eee bndouke dun Sy « Eb oe a tarntetaon ww é , of marriage, thé worth of which ie totally amourrting to a wear of €.G0,00,000)-. The descriptions of the jewels heve = . 1 etn dg ae Zee , ; ae soxte deta . 7 . deen fentionec in page 4 of ine cormpaint. 1. = her omse Sos aah ee ee ee ee ae Se wean Lae aan bao auc pwn ace el Eye & renied apartieerit glorm Wit ner muehend, Accused No.l. sie wees tl-breated ard heraseed esgan goth Be Cone on, Bs . . on EF é ory eae ah PEEP OE te se lleged that, & cheque of
-
aM RAEN AS PERG LAUER | Gh BORDA LAR A MEM CORURT OFF KARBATARA bi:
BRERA EE Botha QAP 2 AA Studi, EM ROA eB goth, BM dik, for purchase of a car in her names. On nqwing. ye,"
mand over the same to them, for which ahe 2 denied ids : plese ntvetéeck £ ' ve gees hay ng Me te 4 SA further stated in the complaint that, en iToL2e &, accused No.l & 2 attempted 'te comtnit Iaer raurder iy orlshing her neck. However . by che grace of god, eaince 4 pnore call came, inesbeid ort her frees assaulting, it @ further stated iq the "os: pint 'thet, on 19.01.2008, ccused No. t pat ber *elnths on fre. Later, accusec Nal aot return at al. Thereafter, he hes so toe, gry a i. aewe os: eed ee ae POG. LARS SRBPVent Fel, Wo ig ceneim brother of Accused No.l celled be: ard "i a "sce, cxpmsrean ies wot % 7 . sete oy Beat te, fh Be. ay sae é ee ee % aGl TOTES: TMM AY BSeec ber fo satuely her owiehe, ott ra . al eta = x ie 2 ai = aie i x > Soe a m .
Ke ae As aR TARISO TAAL ited Lag lik? Nove hat BABS B PPT EL Rae ACOA FPR AE ETE ee ey ee a ee co Bees atherwise she would not get her husband back. In theee. circumstances, it is stated by her that, she ae ene | af her to come to Bangalore. Hen nee, ont 08.02.2 028, ehe- ee QVEr Os Hargelore. cs the coraplaint that, she a came to know the iniicmation' of her bh end returning to the rented fat ard oent te viet Accune sed No.4. At that time, accused How thre: reat aed hee. 'tt i@ stated by her them mo béle fr fs as = e a q a fiosadl Me ey be ice 8 fe . aedTt orhic tiadentally ie the pergcon whe oleyed an impertant role in her marriage. Tt wae tmformed by @ccuse) He.4 that unlese ard url the derearula are
- &e ER 3 bh, aceite # 2 4 = at wy ga0etiea, tie matrimonial relationshin cannot he
--_ . , ok & ee . i a8, i 6 hog, PRSUIPEO. (2 iS Stehed Dap eer tet, on 19O.LO.20088, ee SURYT OF KARMATARA ae Be 2B POEMS ORE CEP AS TSESSES RAEI TGP BUA EPG MEM CIR Gib KARR AT AR A MES REE ye eR te al Se RE Rat a ber or else, he woukl not oe niles with urvierworld done oe Sage amd requested him to tebe back the complainari. Bit os guch request was turned down. It & alleged in the: cormplamt that, on 26.05.2008, parerite - na few ot 3 Accioet a No.3 Priya Singh ie, Mrs. Rekeha, 'Sin ngh and. Pratap Singh visited ber in Be alone and. again » they beve | for Hond dg city war aad J furt retterated © wine hee thet, sins has | to watinly their * demands, It is further all thats 4 it. th rid of Jair cary - 2008, accuse No.6 ard accused No? erate ea Bangslnze an preseuriged ner te: eatisfy the dow: ry demand. It is further stated in ihe oo plait that, she" haa "peoeived phone oal: from Rache, who 8 the care taleer of her busberxi's house stating thot, de émands made earlier would have t be met tole ephone in Bangalore acl threatened her thet, he had are & 4 Shoe pee mee <i Sao tee Fosxae "
ae ne Ea gs Bae ft Pi Ra cm Se fagh BAS Part oh net i teins and come of the umident heave taken place in Bang Le eae ETT E Ae Kt PE QUE ARTS ESLOA PALIN AR PERRET Mott RAO 2PM ARIMA RARELY PEGs LER U2 PLA Pd po o he would do ber away from the earth:
e . Heard SriRevi.E Nel, learned. Senior Counse A: . tor the petitioner in both the petitions and Smits Pranila, learned Senior Courwel for. the "Respondent 'Nod in OrLPive7/ S016 | ail 'Sri Shar Tappa, Soastoedd counsel foe the Reaposdent ane : CrbP 5682/2009 and Sr. Seaten.¢ Siri, learn i HCGP: ior State, € y feared Senior Courmel for the ets goont re es 9 i fa E, oe is ee it a petoner that, err vine period o siay of the complainant ewite relates to the period form eb ce O7.09 9.2007 re 'tlt 06.02.2008, the dafe on which the were © separated by. 'the hus bend leaving the house and Aw risdiction wt Delhi, Whar bed anc Ja oar ast cectnng a ee ag 2 de 4 :¥ BS oo gsi be cs gee st, Bite Where the complaint is regietered. He further aubmite Be oe "a, ~ & A et i Aare PTEMES A RAE, hh PE NLS, § OA OA EPRMAE ET eet he PR Bt Wate yb A A gd gah, 4G ely 1 Rast oe b that, on or after 05.02.2008, the petitioner hae contacted the complainant and even changed their mobile mumbers aid ato | communication with the complainant at 3% submitted by learned Serior Courmel for ty e petitioners, th nt, BS per Section L7Y of Crt Be, the. Co ourt int. + Bangalore | neve mo urmdicton to try the offence, v | whic he alleged to hewe a FS sea £ Gen of tae Courts in ibraitted by him that, the hrestening cal Z | given 'by secused ia fase and by her .owr, "gtatenent, the. petitioners hed changed & Be they eve stopped all mear of . 'hatement lil, Were were Loresierrimg cols m contrary to. her. own etateriernt in the complaint stating that, & ng vo om $e0% Sia, wary Se Bow ie taut stopoed Gil CAPEKITILIEER MAGI "FELre LIEN. PMERENE IEE ERESER FEEDER Url ERE MP PMR ERT SESAME PEMEPT Gy RP RP ORG MET LUN POP KAR BLT AR HEGM COURT OF RARNATAKA HIM purpowe of brimging the purivdictien of Court ow Bangalore. Hence, be submite that relyirg "ory. the decisions reported m the following rabicig, Courts at. Bangalore have no jurisdiction to civfertain the ocmpladnt . or inquire ite it. Hence, he au that the proceeds wage ?. The les wri Senior counsel 'for the petitioners a hae reed on the < bling deciinns ole Ee coo frond foot we a ep hg suf nw wt ude Preeti gupta. & Amother Ve. State of Jberkhe od & . Anothe :
ie "(Aj Penal Codé (45 of 1860), 8.498-A- Dow
- Prot bidion Act 128 2 af 1961) Ss 3 4+ Hearasement demand: of dousry- Complaint pled by wife iG von - tesband ang hig relaives- No specific t appellants, sister-in- ie otherde-law ef complainant ellants residing at different place-Neither visiled ples o YF incident-Nor ued wilh complainant ari her hueshondeTheir bipicahon i complaint ig meant fo harass ana humiliate husband's relatives-Permitting a 6 med . . - lose grewuertel Hee sekearmen, wtf cee omplairioant &: Pursue EMPPEE SUE EE Pe wore me Ges ee cep & EF WRT OF KARNATAKA HIGH 4 ol e INATAKA HIGH CC WRT GF KAL ves teve kim, SERED Ui MIRE Li ROMO Lae Made be OoCBE see som the 8 al RI "thet, there: are ape ope Serminr coungel Smt. Prarmila 'tor the. respomient submits that, at the time. of incident the pettooner/Accused forced the complein wazit te: S\oamna. te Bangalore in view of the harasenieti and mental orueily out to her, besides Physical art Liat : af pre co 'her Neck and attempting te conint bor 2 se, she was forced tp corne to Barigelore and therelire, thin acts af the petitioner iteelf | bas on west aed ber p ge to 'Bangalore. it = further subssit ed by her that, one cane U/ 8.498-A of IPC ig continuing offence atid th therelore, Ceurt where pert of the incidertt has heen Oona niittes sear tena the, co sommpla int ara render justios te the p e in tinis ca8e mi ig + ubmited ty learned Senior counsel ations thet, on 12.10.9008, soxne. of the accused person have come to Batwalore arc on 2.08.3 2008, they have visited Bangalore and met the somplainast ari they have reiterated the demand fer a hae , ea ee $. a se rt ae .
- Sewry. If i also averred in the complaint thet, on 2 we ge ot s z Bf. 4 2 « ye amare é 4 it 64,05,2009 also, accused No.l had made te epnoric call Lar BARI LAS SS ok ied ah RO RAPE EER GBR YS te ARSENE OL A BOK Eto af Gh bo Rad # BURL ESCAA ESA EGGS PY GL Ee ARIS Pek MERC YY RAL ES BALA TR Oo Eley La, mh Tes were _---- Loe penae 4 oe LO, If gupport of her cententiorm, the isarned % gf SE upen the following rulings:
y (2011)11 Supreme Court Cases GO1 - Sumitha Komari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar. 'Criminal Procedure Code-1973 Se.177, 178 and 179 Terricrial perisdiction-Continuing offence committed in yaore log areas. than one-Offence g bie by Court having jurisdiction over amy such local area-Comploint fled by appellant wife at Gaya ing U-treatment and cruelty at the hands of her aig) home ot husband and his relatives at me:
. RGRch Gna thap.she wes forcibly fae to her . parental.-Agme at Gaya by her husband unth « . Continuing one
-conpequence of contint co 'threat of dire consequences in case their dowry denmcdrm 1as not met Held, as Ge oferce was a a4 was only a id episode at G offence of harasament or Ul-ireatment meted out to tie complainant, SDM at . Capel hee puriediction fo proceed ivith criminal case mwliited thereo-inipugned order holding proceecings af Gala mol meuntauicole cise to lage of % ee} ¥ eepaiel gon, eed paul gre see, soenansnsh ee) BY seoreury 4 ous godt gir eee rae ee ee MPscicion set asige Perma code, 1G» Se 408-4 opt fe Le ao we ae .
Are Qe FI Pile GAWD LP BARAT PRAISE SRY OB Se = a ee oe iia a we e ee a 2 A 2 z a a ¢ a @ Bk SOR AE SAME E 8 8 by a & mall af 408 efiv S 84 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 196]) and 4 (Paras 8 ia 10 18 ari 19)° esa a ii} (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 728 | Satvinder Kaur Vs. State. (Government of NOT :
of Deihi) and another *"A-Criminal 3 rocedure Code, / tere. Se i777, I78, 482, 156, (162 and g a4- Quashing of Pik on doapi lack ¢ ap * ternitor ial juriediction o af palice te investigate the. _ off ffernie-improper- Poeltce Oller competent ta inues sstiguie ava However, the ie Cen for word 'the ¢ fo the * police f Re comes & station hee "ing territorial juris the Cunt sion: shea the crime wes committed DOT
- his territ torial Jurisdiction sul (hos iwoule mpl mec thas. ine ae cave which requires tuwestigation, the police officer oan, fefise i recor Gi FIR arul/or p sy ae eco Fos "E-Cviminal Procedure Code 1974- Se.482 and IS6f2} Quashing of FIR- High Court to proceed h 2, "eniirely on the basie of allegations made in the complaink- if the FIR primefnce discloses commission of an offence, the High Court should be renutont to interfere- Hence High Court erred im iM US MARNLAT ABA MMi PIO LANE ISP AAR EAT ARA iidele (Ur > apb ee ee eee Sead hoot aad ae BRB EE ERPS PR HALE PAY EAR ES £0, Stat yah et VE Maat Bud ae & AE doh EEN EE Ree heh Go ER Ho PO ee guashing Gwe FIR at the siege of gwestigation.-- overlooking the clear provisions of 5. 1562 eB.
following dates are relevant for the purpose ef decking"
DUST Me :
the purmdiction of the Co 4 a went eee e - iaroay gee toad sas ck , oyterk: the cmon logical evertte cormmerned for the aaid purpose: " Ggetmerded Honda City oar at) 'Noigibal/ 8 ew Delha.
.
ry gement ceremony in ceo muen ite, PFE. % 7 a < Hew Prerul'e Chib, New Delhi = ? Mernage at Poorterce: Auditorium, Dheule Kuali, Fae Pheatbed New Delhi.
'e" Sed FPR gy F eh a é a4 a a is OF. 12.2007 Mother in law/Accused Ho.g . takes articles received at the iace i: Bee Delhi marriage na New Delhi if Fe een meg 3 = = ceca he Bo, on oe & CRE OSS erie Wert > Jager, 2007 Nahercatrea bs abo. we tiie ed stot ae 'Peg es i atl dale. Tata? EEE 5: eA vig, 3 GE EEL eR
-- an EB 1 ASRS LL LATO HOM SORKIN NHYS 40 PNP WOia i wernreMww ary a cl a "oo ¢ (eg Ts ag 13 | 4 7 SS . & a ¢ pom ga ES me aa fs . as go aoe ie ae ted x Na ay . a aa) ee ed : - a aad te ge = ot et P| c -| aj « 2 : ee
- 7 © sf i ge gon: ht wea | ee e "Ee r. . Wer bs been "et bel Uy "bel ae = a " i ee Q o wo = o ne Es j aa z ee Pe Leak he cP é ge c ee Hee toy S BELEE * & ee _ | § (873 1B e = wi, se a " : a a ee BE le & wh fa ae : % hie ea ok ee panos 'a p are iC : ; . a i a a ion sed e or Je aa ' ed "Ss a te ae ke ae "t vet ee is ad BD Oe me tng F : og . C a 2 me galing a he o a S oo as Bead a es Bos see sooth fayge ay ae es ome sad : : es e Teal! gh apa Boi ee iu S ped "a ae " te wk " « es c ne Let pai way gel 2 a Fe aed al : ; ° ns se jh * Ke ed eigen . 108 F. 7 : . i " oa ee " wl a :. ey i a. 7 sf wi ' c a a ose : np q . & Pry os ns BE ees ee iG " oa : bd eS mares Ls ited tio Atts Viothe S FS .
Z ane « 4 Trips Mother of re ii err Peth + Pa 08 s ne RS oe Wicd a Q Ol '.
Bil aa hy pega a 4 'prone TE gad Dost ae i, sy"
e S : - : 7 C a QO 4
-
ao 06.02.2008 hes 8.
e 4 Be € & ee i: oe wa vod aed god LZ 4 im ob oh ia a a end] "YE LG ORE EPMA PITRE MIRE PR PE FEED weer eA Re ae de ok my SC and jee <E ay! Boe it MS ida fg, Soa Ban Melsice ea Ls mrosases TUAEPEY ARAL E Ah RUGRMATARA MEE ESPEN SSS ER SS SS eS ID ee eee She bins: stated thet : reobewele aE es % sa seonane Se Ee oe. ay ive " Pe ds i advise Of her father, she hee COMG (0 Datwalere, Ib is fim "of
16. On the careful consideration of facta pieced ngs ge the complaint it i seen thet, the - matrimonial . relationship between Accused Ao o.1 and complainant rélates to the period Gorm 07.00. 207 Pts (06.02.20 JE. Aus i@ noted above, al the acts hive | beer . cotamitted either in Mumbai, Delhi or at J von, Te is ardy ly after 06.02.9008, thet the petitioner had come toB angalors:
iv. It & aub mittee. by. learned Senior Ceunse)| for the complainant that, she We ie forced fo come te Bangalore.
8, The avercoen tte in the courpleint ere otherwise.
"ahe Whe a@dvined by her father t. & come to Hongalore and therefore, # cannot he tated that her const ig to Bangalore '6 in commequence of the alleged me ofence couamitted by the accused and i i ork or: the . y Cat Pe eee me bese ee Par, PE Eee Cary) serpy ool de fae od COCR Teen dye i PBB ErEey ine STaC Oe) arorreeecsd: Be LE COAT ore SSSR rent eee aes OF KARNATAKA HI, £ ae = :
j S :
zg e a Question, when the marrage took place between the thee He COURT at lies, persons gathered in the imarriags would he ie. & f rua dispure whe are. proposed wittesses in the mat either close rélstives, friends or well wishers. Necessarily ail the witnesses in this Ase are. biting from te faunbai, Rajasthan and Delhi and noite ofthe witressics are cited oa oF mperitioned in the: complaint a8 hailing og Bangelore. Though, Cont will Hat interfere with the fe investigation, < difficulty: of the: polite officers to Utereel all the way to Mumbai, Rajasthan, Dethi, Jalgaon for the FUPpose & f investigation in: this ase haa to be taker note MEET SPE SIP RAR SUSTAICA HIGH COU Err OF KARNATAKA HEC ofa nd t is expotions and proper that the case should be tered at the, place ? Where the marriages took place or AOE EO I boll, OPE a here the negotiations of marriage tool place, or where were residing after the marriage, as husband ae ge BAe « vig eh ps % _ #552 ase de Suan Bre iY. Afler eiving « careful cormpideration te the :
wo a a © ne nk & Pen FERS Fy. on ®t . ging cans tte . REAMGGOTIS Of Maw tureler Cr.P.C, I am of thes Opin that, gees fae ae é ies ; a i Seg sey e magne it by wary Bes voum tne, fF tan Tae, J Seay agree O0 aS eccsursead SLL LE) Pe Lee ees SAhR ee, GaP ig Fa e i fy e & GH COURT K. OUR T OF KARNATAL ye hae q A MEGH A oy KAR ALATA SEOTE NO FORSHEE Wh EB PBs OF KARNATAKA HI ae A HIC territoria! . juriseiiction Me coZcES "members koth of ihe complainant as well Jalgaon, besides Rajasthan, where the complainant sas. 3 Ms 3 Ee DOT ark grown Up are therefore » i.weuld be-ay me af pastice that the matter Po taker Wt mm ary "et. ° J J the Courta haw territorial jariadietk . » OV a the vit. Tt 2 met te be stated ther, oat Bax silowe ne Court wil not have juriadiction in uy eg the « oaiie ». But having ad to the avermnents in the s compl ee int « cad 5 view of the fact that, complainant: aime 'te a on the advise of her father and. that there 4 te fo averment that, abe could met seek = juatioe IE any of the Courts hevirg; territorial jusiediotion over ie tacicent, I am of the opauion thet, it Li inappropriate and inadequate be perne the ine tigation 48 continue in Bangglore, ao fr as _Justee, | an of t ine opinion thet complainant, would he 'able te, secure better justice at the place where the oe } eee wa $ ten 8h abinee teow £££ thn incidents Have happened. On the other herd # ine a Eee ws decd sf * empties gene és = ee -- & oe . investigation @ Continued in Bangalore entire fas Ly _ 4 .
ESS PP agh fy terry yee get Sh GG LOES Seri yesh, oe AQURT ° Mi he at URF OF KARNATAKA HI¢ Moe ea PUES OREO TEMPERS Roh P GP RLARMATAI A MES : Accordt my, the procsedings in Crime NO.60/2009 of purpose of complainant succeeds to lore, In view of the fact that. tel leply gine calle ard mobile phone were discomected or cha: oes are there is no communication on or after = 96.00.2008 the avermenta is not difficult. br 'the. oc complainant to prove the said avermcent. in the anid "place wis ware the mejority of the idents have happened. gS itl Bangalore § M@ an abuse of process of law, % = Byap ppanstuall police station reguetered for offences ~ U f a. 498-4, 5 S00 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Pe Prohibition Act are he ely quesher. 4 COURT OF KARNATAKA HiG#f :
ve albce wet:
Be, at
-e Sore ae a Ms KAN BLA LARA PULP KWL EF OF PHP E LHe SHE PERE WEL AL Gag ee Meer Mend? Ma BB Hage aS eae oe es % "i, Accord inughy, the petitions are allowed" The complainant is at Hberty to file the fe te police station to be dealt m eoorrdance with. ad of aed law. If the said complaint is presen ted inv the appropriate, pelice station, delay caused in those Broce é slings righ int from the date of filing