Karnataka High Court
N V Subramanya S/O Venkatachalapathy vs The State on 12 November, 2010
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
« ::NiR$A-I$:L:4A W/O RAMESH BABU
_ 5 " I<fv VAN] w/O NAGABHUSHAN
6 NAG-ABUSIMIANAIAH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE _;_I
DATED THIS THE 12"?" DAY OF N0VEM'_Ba;::1?jI2;--«2_V{:}'1:I_V}'
BEFORl3Z__ E Q
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
_(}___RIMINAL REVISION PETITION 1530.381 A2097 = A A
BETWEEN:
1 N V SUBRAMAN'I~'E.S/(1V;vENK_AEAEHALAPATHY
AGED AEOIIT 45 YEAS». I
2 E V. Af~J.{."x?\:f:/IDE' vEN.I§ATAcHAI,APATHY
AGED' ;AEOuT 53*Y_EARS
R/AT EIINDDEUIPLIIRIETAEUK
3 M RAxMES'H_VE-,AB~U 320 KODANDARAMASHETTY
* "AGED ABOUT :33 YEARS
II1AT_EAI\IG~AI;ORE
* AG'ED'ABO'UT 51 YEARS
R/Av"'15..~BANGALORE
A A AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT HINDUPUR
S/O NAGABHUSHAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT HINDUPUR
xgsw
A Sr.i1$,atiSh;R.Giriji, HCGP for R-1,
' Adv. for R-2 (abSent))
A x.3;9i7'*'0f Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the Order dt.18.l.2007 and
' eonsequently pass and Order discharging the petitioner herein as
[*0
7 S V VENKATACHALAPATHY SHETTY
S/O VEN KATARAMANAS1-«IETTY
AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS
R/AT MYSORE
8 SMT VISHALAKSHAMMAW/Oii' 2' K «
VENKATACHALAPATHY SHETf'1'Y '
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS A _ A . S =1
R/AT MYSORE
(By Sri.P.P.Hegde, Adv.:*),_
AND:
1 THE
REP, BY MAI\_Ei'J.§;'/5.-_""v"«/fiI3,S'1', POLICE STATION
BY STA:'j'E_ PU'BL_I€'ivPR'OSECU'TOR
2 1vSMT,D;S_UJATHA"'~«.__ g
1;)/O DEVA«r<AJ»EtjRS, .
MIG 25, Kw{JV'VE'PJ_Ii~'{.jNAGAR,
KARASAWAD~I_ ROAD,
in 'M.ANDYAH.V: A ...REsPONDENTs
i ,. Criminai Revision Petition is filed under Section
per Section 239 Of C.P.C. in C.C.NO.345/2006 pending before
the Pr}. C.}. & JMFC, Srirangapatna.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for f1irthe1*
hearing this day, the Court made the fo1iowing:--
ORDER
Petitioners have sought for to':pset'_'iaside:'the _o1'de'r:"dated 18.01.2007 passed by in'-it C.C.No.34S/2006 in dis'rnVissing""the_:'application'filed by them for discharge.
2. Amoing 'i;hei_Vpet£ti(iners, petifio'rre--r"No.i is the husband and others are. in-1i.awsi of--.th'e.icoiiipiai§nant--respondent No.2. The Compiiainaot 'aeornplaint against her husband and in» iaws for 'these1ieigea' at-ejeeeg punishable under Section 498A pp EPC 1*./iis(___S_ections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition ' ;}\ct,, the strength of the complaint filed, which came "mfrije i;%e7gieieiea in Crime No.298/2002, the police after investigation fiied the charge sheet before the Civil Judge & JMFC, Mandya which has been later transferred to it Srirangapatna and is pending in C.C.No.345/2006 and, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking for discharge came to be dismissed. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard the learned Counse?-E"for_'tt'1e: petiitio.nVer_ learned Governent Pleader. On the previotzs occasion, a1th}o.1j'gh'*~ -' the parties were directed to be preseirtt,VVpetitioner':No';§l alone is present and respondent t\le';2, the and her Counsel are not present. V ,4-.-to t-her-.petitione:5s, at the time of filing the cornplainti; the coj§5ii'plainanat_ 'working as an Assistant Public Prosecutori"wor};ing_ at--._l\/iandya, adjacent to Srirangapatna; the maffiage ofA.petitione'r'VNo.l with the complainant was a love made all sorts of false allegations due to the differenccspiijarising between. herself and petitioner No.1. and, _apartf1'o:rt1 taking over the custody of the children after filing of i '_the°complaint, she also prevailed ttpon the local police to file "the charge sheet against the petitioners, which is nothing but abuse of process. t;~s,«
-{J 6 time of trial, it is a pre-trial stage and the Court cannot assume and presume facts so as to discharge the accused. It has flfurther noted that, on careful reading of complaint and the charg ;f"she,et filed, there is a prima facie material to attractxlthe-offences mentioned therein and, at the stage of hea1"iagloeforeichargeg Court cannot test the truth of prima facie"materia£"_lAand it a matter to be considered after the 1313.1, whichiweuldivdecide the result of the case and it'rnay eitfheij.efid._in:acquittalor conviction and at this :stage, athelrelig. (lo .,mater§,alitoidischarge the accused. According.l,y,"~.refet::Aing reported decisions on the issue, the i"~/lagistr'hasidi.sh';i'ssed the application filed. 7;.,I1iVt.the ciasewoii hand, admittedly, it is a love marriage aiildii3oth,_wvei'e.advocates at the relevant point of time and their rnarriag.e~ xyassiinot liked by the family members of petitioner No.1." it also not in dispute that they have got three children i *_out~of the wedlock. At. the relevant point of time, respondent ' '"No.2~complainant was an Assistant Public Prosecutor working at Mandya District and the charge sheet was filed by the
1.:
Mandya police against the accused persons. However, later, the matter was transferred to the Magistrate at Srirangapat_i1aVlhalvin'gx felt that there would be bias. It is also evidentgfroni t'he'.recolrdf K it that, by filing an application before custody of the children, the complainarrt_ taken lcusjtoldy of the children and also during ollliitained an exparte decree of divorcl§:.,,,ag'ai'nsjt 1. Although the allegation made 'against.-"thc« that there is semblance of the learned Coun_sel,..fortheiipe'titi.one:rse::that'she.being an Assistant Public Prosecator has prevailed upon the local police to see-._,that the charge sheet is filed against the accused .,'pers':ohs,;_can.n<)t be 'raled out. The allegations if any, made by _her_a'ga'i'r1.st».the"i.n~laws would be necessarily vindictive in nature, as has stated that their marriage was not liked by ' "other family members of petitioner No.1 and as an afterthought, _lshe=-also made an allegation of dowry harassment. When both the complainant and petitioner No.1 are advocates and admittedly, it is a love marriage, the demand of dowry is far 5%"
from truth. So tar as the allegation against other petitioners 1S concerned, it must have been made to get rid of them' domination over her husband and also to have a clairnvoaer tihrel' l ,9»-
children. In the differences fieegi pybeeweenrp members with regard to pafling the sV.eihi].dren, complainant is shown s to and ultimately, in the routine _oharfge:'shpeet hasibeen filed by the police. trial the statement of some of V who are residing elsewhere"andalsoso-meil.o't:ithe'iocallwitnesses of Mandya. In the factlaall it is also possible that the respondent ~leadir:gia'n independent life, having sufficient i.nc'(>me§"being an offilcei' of the Prosecution Department, must haveiii';-a.deiupfher mind to harass the petitioners. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the the impugned order passed by the trial Court dated H .1 8.1.2007 in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for discharge, is set aside. Petition is allowed and the charge sheet /.
I:
fiied against the petitioners is set aside, holding that there no prima facie case against them.
Bkp