Sri.C.Sathyanarayana Murthy vs State By Sub Inspector Of Police on 4 August, 2009

[Cites 3, Cited by 35]

Karnataka High Court

Sri.C.Sathyanarayana Murthy vs State By Sub Inspector Of Police on 4 August, 2009

Bench: Jawad Rahim

us run: HIGH comer or  I   

cmcurr annex»: AT nmawgn.  A 

DATED mrs ms 413 on ($1?    'V 

nnmlm % V V  
ms Hozrsm am. wsﬁufm JAw;m'R.éHing 

cmmrmz. m'.1,_frrm"ri' lav:-.7V%6f4;12oo9'  

BETWEEN 2

1.

Sri. C. Sathyaaaarayaiia Mliithy   x V
S/o. Late  Sublaazaoé.  ' "" "
Aged about  '       
R/<3. No.21, 22-#1 C1033, aw': 
Someshwara.Lay§.;:1t,  

Smt. Maga Padmavathi
W] 0. Y. 

Agaiv about   '

 Dear No.21] S. Compound

'   Bellary

 $152. 3/0. Y. Achamaa
2  ai'm'j':.3.t 422 years

0. Dvoor ;No.21/2, B. S. Compound
Kappagalﬂoad, Ballary

 .':3'-int.  Prasanna, W'/0. Latc Srzinivas
 about 40 years

   Rio. Bagada Dcvanahaiﬁ Post

§A:m:-:kari Taluk
---- T Bangalore Rural District

(By Sri. Mahabakshwar Goad, Adv.)



ARI):

..----.mu.._----.

1. State by Suhdnspcctor of Poiice
Moka Police Station   
Bell:-ny Disinct 

2. Smt. Bhagyalakshmi
W/o. Sathyanarayana
Aged about 30 years
R/o. Moka Village
Bellary District =    
  ,..RESP'ONDEN'i'

THIS FT'ILE£_).._ "£J_/S'; -£432» CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR V'?_HEV"PE:TI' 1f£QN'ERS PRAYING THAT 'I'HiS
HON'BLE---COURT  BE '--Pi.E3i\'SwF~£3' T0 QUASH THE F.I.R
IN CRIME NOJ45;'2OQ9 'Q?-.._M.0E-'IA POLICE STATION AND
ALL FURTHER' PRQEEEBINGE PURSUANT TO THE SAID
COMPLAINIT PENDVING"r)§=.THE FILE GP' THE PRINCIPAL
JUDICIAL M.Fs{}IS'FRA_TE-,_FERSI' cmss, BELLARY IN CRIME

No.-3312009.

 "   c§§?L,P comma on FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

 jcovm  THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER.

 ~   petitioners are anatm' ed m accused in Grant:

  pending on the ﬁle of JMFC, Bcllmy registered

" oﬁcnccs punishable under the pmvisians of Swtion

u 493m), 420 R/W Section 34 of IPC. Petitioners stack to

94?:



quash the said proceedings and are in this  _

Section 482 of C:r.P.C.

2. Heard regarding admission:-AV  ' 

3. The ktarncci Counsel    {ﬁough
the 1" petitioner    - Smt.
Bhagralakshmi, the  1315}  Due to
certain ci.r<:u1I;.s-1'@t_:cs,   " e becama
necessary agrid   had ﬁled a
petition  2008 on the ﬁle of
Family   :: 'jibe said petition cm: to be

allowed by"    04.03.2009 dissolving the

 _ ma1'Ii§;g:u*$v1§»=:tvVveeV.:§:" ';.hc____1__FF. petitioner and 294 rcspomient. On

 that the complaint ﬂied by 29*'

 pmsecution of the 1" petitioner and

 _0th€I'§" for: bfﬁfilccs punﬁhabk under Sachlon 49891), 420

H "  34 of IPC fa mt tenable as there is secession of

 ;éi2§tia:s:1::ship of husband and wife which is the basis for

  'bx*.i::§g'11g the act mum' the pumew' of Scctto' :2. 493m.

   Secondly he would contznd that complaint avemmnts with

&»;@r



regard to acts of the accuséd are ailcgcd to have been
committed at Bangalore Within the territoﬁa} jurisdiction of

Bangalore Court and not at B-ellary. He submit,3"ﬂj'afi"--t'hc

complainant/1" respondent with a View tp'  ﬁg:

petitioner No.1 and others has ﬁlcfd...apompla" in" " 't:it_; V' » of Magistrate at Bellaxy whic11 'A:4Co:g 1'r:;jjV}:1Aéi31y'n§5 juxﬁadiction. He mfcrs toV p"'ps:gvisi<$ns 2 of I97"? % of L' Cr.P.C.

4. From such by the learned _ it -' relationship between the 1'"?

petitio11 c:£ 2"?' has ccaseé with effect from 0-=i5§}3'.?,QG9.V on béasis of the decree for divorce in MC " But the complaint avermcnts relate to .";a.1i1éged1y perpetrated by the accused dunn' g su!::sisf_f::1:q:fF' (Sf marriage. Hcwevcr, the issue as to whether jtzlgac a.1ie:Agt'z-xtiogtzs, in the complaint could be bnought within' the of Section 49396..) is necessarily be decicleci by the V. juxisdietional Magstrate and as seen from the nattxre of the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant has not conﬁned her aliegations to be over acts perpeizrated Within §V{L the tcnitoxial jurisdiction of Bangalore: Court, but has referred to other instances also. Thexefom, the learned Jurisciictionai Magistrate will be considering w1;r.cf:h.§'r~.V_the oﬁbncc aﬂcgad is continuqus oﬂcncc or the oﬁezicré' 'i:iag«:--..téév.E¢?§%:i:iA_ place at more than one place as 1>'§fcrred_-*£;o' = 178 of 01:13'. C. If the aﬂcgations may faﬁ under Sections If?7andV" ff?» Cr.,i€ (3u; exercise has to be done by and not in exercise of "t311d:§1? Cr.

._H- _ in? the petition to quash the petition is rejected.

At 'atgege, learned Counsel for the petitioner

--._co11s?xie:ring the fact that except the I"

';)iff::§éI~s are only his relatives and 2"!' respondent laagé them only to harass them and if they have to .. napp§:ar"' in Court at Bcllary they may not only suﬂer 'Aflértiship, but will be exposed to unnecessary heavy VV "éxpcz1¢iiture of travelling from Bangalore to Bcllary. This czmttznttion refers to inability or diﬁculty in appearance of 6 the petitioners bcfare the Trial Court at Belkary. This could be mitigated by allowing the petition to move the Court to seek permanent exemption ﬁmm appcaranCc¢..«ai:1§i.':

an application is made, to favourabiy consid§:if"§g;r:~:anf_i.ei; K V' With these observatimis, 'cf; i _ T i IUDGET gab*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court