Bangalore District Court
Mamata vs Anil Kumar on 27 March, 2026
Digitally signed
by
SANJEEVKUMAR SANJEEVKUMAR
S HINDODDI S HINDODDI
Date: 2026.03.27
KABC030878472021 18:08:36 +0530
Presented on : 29-11-2021
Registered on : 29-11-2021
Decided on : 27-03-2026
Duration : 4 years, 3 months, 28 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT:- SRI.SANJEEV KUMAR S. HINDODDI,
B.COM., LL.M.
XXXI ADDL. C.J.M., BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 27th Day of March 2026
C.C. No.33385/2021
Complainant: The State by Police Sub-Inspector,
Bagalagunte P.S., Bengaluru City
(By Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Versus
2 C.C.No.33385/2021
Accused:
1. Anil Kumar s/o Tukaram Rao, 44 yrs,
R/at No.2, 1st Main, 5th Cross,
Nanjundeshwara Nilaya, Sidedahalli,
Nagasandra Post, Bengaluru City.
2. Nagarathna w/o Tukaram Rao, 64 yrs,
R/at Kasturi Plaza, S.S.Puram,
Tumakuru.
3. Roopa w/o Muruli Chavan,
50 yrs, R/at No.660/9, Pipeline,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru.
(By Sri N.Surendra Kumar, Advocate)
1. Sl. No. of the Case 33385/2021
2. The date of commission Prior to 22-09-2021
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant Smt. Mamatha
4. Name of the accused Anil Kumar & Ors.
5. The offences complained U/sec.498(A), 420, 504, 506
of read with 34 IPC
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his/her examination
7. Final Order Accused No.1 Convicted and
Accused No.2 & 3 are
Acquitted
8. Date of such order 27-03-2026
3 C.C.No.33385/2021
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Bagalagunte P.S., Bengaluru has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/sec.498(A), 420, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC.
2. The case of prosecution is that the accused No.1 married CW1 Mamatha on 14-06-2003 at Arkeshwara Temple, Mysore as per the customs prevailing in their community. After marriage, CW1 resided along with accused No.1 & 2 at No.756, Nagarathna Nilaya, 20 th Cross, Bagalagunte, Bengaluru. At that time, the accused No.1 & 2 started to ill treat CW1 by demanding to bring huge cash as dowry, for which CW1 lodged complaint before Peenya Police Station. As per the statement of accused No.1, CW1 had withdrawn the case. That 4-5 months prior to date of complaint i.e., 22-09-2021 the 4 C.C.No.33385/2021 accused No.1 picked up quarrel with CW1, abused her in filthy words, threatened to kill her, subjected her to both physical & mental cruelty. Further the accused No.1 left CW1 & her daughter and with an intention to cheat them, with the help of accused No.2 & 3 and at their instigation had induced CW10 Chandrabai & CW11 Srinivas Rao and married CW9 Bhavani for the second time. Thereby it is alleged that the accused persons have committed the alleged offences.
3. Upon submission of charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 420, 504 and 506 r/w 34 IPC, this court has taken cognizance against accused persons for the said offences. The accused persons are on bail.
5 C.C.No.33385/2021
4. After furnishing prosecution papers to accused persons and on hearing both the sides, charges for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 494, 420, 504 and 506 r/w 34 IPC were framed, read over and explained to them, wherein they claimed to be tried. As such, the case was posted for trial.
5. To substantiate its case, out of 13 witnesses cited in final report, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses as PW1 to 10 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to 21. In the cross-examination of PW3, the learned defence counsel got marked document as per Ex.D1. Ex.S1 has been marked during the cross-examination of PW10. The learned Sr.APP has given up CW3, 8 & 12 and later on the side of prosecution was closed.
6 C.C.No.33385/2021
6. Thereafter, the accused persons were examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., to enable them to explain the incriminating evidence appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and did not choose to lead defence evidence. However, thereafter the accused No.2 got herself examined as DW1 and produced documents as per Ex.D2 to 8.
7. When the case was at the stage of passing judgment, this court suomoto altered charges and framed charges against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 420, 504 and 506 r/w 34 IPC, by deleting the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC and read over, explained to them, wherein they claimed to be tried.
7 C.C.No.33385/2021
8. The learned Sr.APP submitted that the evidence already adduced on record may be considered for the altered charges also and that there is no fresh evidence.
9. Heard arguments and perused the material available on record, the points that arise for my determination are;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 being the husband of PW1 Mamatha and accused No.2 & 3 being mother, sister of accused No.1 at No.756, Nagarathna Nilaya, 20th Cross, Bagalagunte, Bengaluru, with common intention had ill treated PW1 both physically and mentally and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 498(A) r/w 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons in 8 C.C.No.33385/2021 furtherance of common intention while ill treating PW1 had abused her in filthy language, knowingly that such insult would provoke breach of peace and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that in furtherance of common intention the accused persons threatened PW1 with dire consequences of life, thus committed criminal intimidation and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 506 r/w 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that in furtherance of common intention, the accused No.1 being husband of PW1 with the support of 9 C.C.No.33385/2021 accused No.2 and 3 married PW5 Bhavani, the daughter of PW6 Chandrabai and PW7 Srinivas Rao, during the subsistence of marriage of accused No.1 with PW1, thereby cheated PW1 & her daughter and committed the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC?
5. What order?
10. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : Partly in the affirmative Point No.2 : Partly in the affirmative Point No.3 : Partly in the affirmative Point No.4 : Partly in the affirmative Point No.5 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS Point No.1 to 4:-
11. All these points are taken together for common consideration for the sake of brevity, in order to avoid repetition of facts and discussion.
10 C.C.No.33385/2021
12. Before adverting into the factum of this case, it is better to culled out the provisions of main offences alleged in this case i.e., Section 498(A) and 420 IPC. Section 498(A) of IPC reads as under;
Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.11 C.C.No.33385/2021
After having gone through the above provision, the main ingredients which attracts Section 498(A) of IPC are;
(i) woman must be married;
(ii) she must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and
(iii) such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by the husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband.
13. Section 420 IPC reads as under;
Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
12 C.C.No.33385/2021The main ingredients which attracts Section 420 of IPC are;
(i) Deception of any person,
(ii) Fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver property or alter/destroy a valuable security, and
(iii) Mens rea (dishonest intention) at the time of the inducement.
14. In order to prove the case of prosecution, out of 13 witnesses, the prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses wherein PW1 is the complainant, PW3 is the sister of PW1, PW4 is the mother of PW1, PW2 is the mahazar witness, PW5 is the second wife of accused No.1, PW6 & 7 are the parents of PW5, PW9 is the friend of PW1, PW10 is the owner of shop & house where PW1 was tenant and PW8 is the Investigating Officer.
13 C.C.No.33385/2021
15. PW1 Mamata.M. being the complainant in her chief examination stated that the accused No.1 to 3 are her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively. That the families of herself and accused agreed and on 13-08-2003 her marriage was solemnized at the Office of Sub-Registrar. Before that herself and accused No.1 had fallen in love and got married at Arakeshwara Temple, K.R.Nagar. After marriage, herself and her husband lived in a rented house at Rajagopal Nagar. After 6 months, her parents-in-law started coming to her house and picked up galata saying that they had only one son and they would have got dowry. After two years of the marriage, a baby girl was born to them. That in the year 2011, her husband was making galata saying that he would marry another girl. That her husband had gone to marry for the second time and as she had stopped it, her husband and accused No.3 had beaten on her with a rod at the instigation of her 14 C.C.No.33385/2021 mother-in-law. Then one day without her knowledge, accused No.1 had taken away her daughter from school, for which she filed kidnap case at Peenya Police Station. That on 18-06-2011, when she and her mother went to the house of accused No.3 to ask for their daughter back, they beaten severely and her husband had bit her mother's cheek. In this regard herself and her mother had filed a complaint at Peenya Police Station.
16. PW1 has further deposed that after returned from jail during the year 2011, accused No.1 has promised to take good care of her and not commit any more mistakes, on his promise she had withdrawn the kidnap and assault cases. After that the accused again beaten and locked her in the room and he did not go to any work. Further she deposed that her mother-in-law supported for all this and the accused No.2 & 3 had threatened her and accused used to 15 C.C.No.33385/2021 harass her physically and mentally. On 21-09-2021, the accused No.1 was caught red-handed with his second wife at the Durga Parameshwari Temple at Vidyaranyapuram, where her husband had confessed for having a second wife, for which there was a case. PW1 further stated that during the year 2011, the accused No.1 beaten her with a machete, for all these on 22-09-2021 she filed a complaint as per Ex.P1 at Bagalagunte Police Station. Further PW1 by identifying the mahazar as Ex.P2 and her signature on it has stated that on 22-09-2021, the police came to the house where she lived and conducted the mahazar and that PW2 and CW3 had also signed it. The Wound Certificate issued by Vijaya Hospital, certified copy of the document relating to the property in the name of accused No.1, certified copy of the F.I.R. against accused, certified copy of the private complaint filed by PW5 against the accused in II A.C.J.M. Court in PCR No.379/2025, certified 16 C.C.No.33385/2021 copy of the application filed in the court under section 12(1) of the P.W.D.V. Act by PW5 against the accused in C. Misc. No.436/2025 in the A.C.J.M. Court, certified copy of the affidavit in Enclosure-I filed in the A.C.J.M. Court by PW5 in the said C.Misc. Case, certified copy of the application filed in the court under section 18 of the P.W.D.V. Act by PW5, certified copy of the application filed in the court under section 19 of the P.W.D.V. Act by PW5, certified copy of the application filed in the court under section 20(1)(b) of the P.W.D.V. Act by PW5, certified copy of the application filed in the court under section 23 of the P.W.D.V. Act by PW5, certified copy of the application filed in the court under section 23 of the P.W.D.V. Act, the birth certificate of Rutvik, Pen drive and the Certificate filed under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act are identified by PW1 as per Ex.P3 to 15 respectively.
17 C.C.No.33385/2021
17. PW2 Arun Kumar in his chief examination has identified his signature on Ex.P2 the mahazar and stated that on 22-09-2021, the police came to Door No. 756, Nagarathna Nilaya, 20th Cross, Bagalagunte and conducted the mahazar and that along with him one Nagendra also signed the mahazar.
18. PW3 Asha.M. being the sister of PW1 has stated in her chief examination that the accused No.1 is her sister's husband, the accused No.2 is her sister's mother-in-law and accused No.3 is the daughter of accused No.1's aunt. That in the year 2003 her sister was studying lab technician course at Vidya Vahini College in Tumakuru, there her sister fell in love with Anil Kumar, who lived in Someshwara Layout, Tumkuru. On 14-06-2003, her sister and the accused eloped and got married at the Arakeshwara Temple in Mysore. PW3 stated that on 13-08- 18 C.C.No.33385/2021 2003, they had performed the marriage of accused No.1 and her sister at the Sub-Registrar's office. Later her sister lived with the accused persons, for whom a baby girl was born. That the accused No.1 to 3 started harassing her sister by demanding dowry and physically beaten her severely and mentally tortured her. That the accused were harassing her sister by demanding her to get dowry, for which panchayaths were held many times and told the accused not to do the same. In the year 2011, the accused No.1 had kidnapped the daughter of PW1 and when tried to get release her, the accused No.1 had beaten her mother severely. On the request made by accused No.1 to withdraw the kidnap case, they had withdrawn the case. Further the accused was returning home in drunken state and was scolding, assaulting her sister and was threatening to kill her and that he would marry another girl. That the accused No.1 took away her sister's jewelry 19 C.C.No.33385/2021 and in the year 2021, the accused No.1 was seen with another woman at Durgaparameshwari temple in Vidyaranyapura by her sister. On inquiry about the woman, the accused No.1 told PW1 that the said woman is his second wife. That the said facts have been came to know by her sister.
19. PW4 Ramamma being the mother of PW1 has stated in her chief examination that accused No.1 is her son-in- law, accused No.2 is the mother of her son-in-law, the accused No.3 is the daughter of accused No.1's aunt. That she had sent her daughter to Tumakuru for lab technician course in the year 2003. That her daughter was in love with Anil Kumar, who lived in Someshwara Layout, Tumakur. They did not accept their love and in the year 2003, her daughter and the accused eloped and got married in a temple in Mysore. Two months later, they 20 C.C.No.33385/2021 performed the marriage of accused No.1 and her daughter at the Sub-Registrar's office. Later, her daughter lived with the accused and a baby girl was born, after which the accused No.1 harassed by saying that he would marry another girl so that he would get dowry. That the accused No.1 used to beat her daughter, scold her with abusive words, threaten to kill her and mentally torture her. That in the year 2011, the accused No.1 had got kidnapped her grand daughter. When she tried to free her, the accused No.1 had beaten her severely and the accused had ran away by taking all the jewelry. That she had filed a case and the said accused had requested to withdraw the kidnap case and accordingly she had withdrawn. That her daughter was got avoiding the another marriage as soon as she came to know about it. That in the year 2021, the accused No.1 was seen with another woman at Durgaparameshwari temple in Vidyaranyapura. On inquiry 21 C.C.No.33385/2021 about the woman, the accused No.1 told PW1 that the said woman is his second wife. That the said facts have been came to know by her daughter.
20. PW5 Bhavani, in her chief examination has stated that accused No.1 was her husband, the accused No.2 was her mother-in-law and accused No.3 was the daughter of accused No.2's sister. That PW1 was her husband's first wife, there was no divorce between them. That in the year 2021, her parents who were searching bridegroom for her marriage had went to the Marathi Sangha at Seshadripuram, where the accused No.2 and 3 were introduced to her parents and there they had discussed about her marriage with accused No.1. Further PW5 deposed that the accused No.2 had come to their house in Sarjapur and the engagement was got performed. That she got married to the accused No.1 on 13-05-2021 at the 22 C.C.No.33385/2021 Rama temple in Yeshwanthpur. After the marriage, she lived with accused No.1 in Munirathna Apartment in Yeshwanthpur, where she was taken good care for three months after marriage. On 21-09-2021, she had gone to a temple in Vidyaranyapura with her husband accused No.1. While coming out, a woman came and had hit accused No.1 and asked him as to why he was with another girl. That the accused No.1 had told PW1 in front of her that she (PW5) was his friend's wife and PW1 said that she was the first wife of accused No.1 and had not yet been divorced. Further PW5 stated that PW1 took her and accused No.1 to the Vidyaranyapura police station, where she had given statement that she was the wife of accused No.1. That the accused No.1 & 2 started beating and torturing her after 2-3 months and that the accused No.1 used to return home in a drunken state and quarrel with her, for which she had filed a complaint against accused 23 C.C.No.33385/2021 No.1 at the Varthur police station alleging that he had cheated her by suppressing his previous marriage. That the said case is pending for trial in court and she has given statement to the police in this regard.
21. PW6 Chandrabai being the mother of PW5 has stated in her chief examination that during the year 2021, she and her husband had gone to the Marathi Sangha in Sheshadripuram to find out a groom for her daughter. She stated that the accused No.2 and 3 had met them there, they had discussed about the marriage of accused No.1 and her daughter. That the accused No.1 and 2 had come to their house in Sarjapur and got performed engagement. That on 13-05-2021 her daughter got married to the accused No.1 in a temple at Yeshwanthpur. After the marriage, her daughter lived with her husband in an apartment in Yeshwanthpur. That her daughter was taken 24 C.C.No.33385/2021 good care for 1-2 months and then the accused started harassing her daughter. Her daughter told her that 4 months after their marriage, when her daughter went to the Kanikaparameshwari temple with the accused No.1, the first wife of accused No.1 was met there, who made lot of galata. Further PW6 deposed that the accused No.1 and 2 had beaten and tortured her daughter without giving her food. The accused No.1 was returning home in a drunken state and doing galata, for which her daughter had filed a complaint against accused at the police station, which is pending in court.
22. PW7 Srinivasa Rao being the father of PW5 has stated in his chief examination that they were looking for a groom for his daughter during the year 2021, himself and his wife went to Marathi Sangha at Sheshadripuram, where the accused No.2 and 3 met him and discussed about the 25 C.C.No.33385/2021 marriage of accused No.1 and his daughter. That the accused No.1 & 2 came to his house in Sarjapur and got performed the engagement. That his daughter was got married to accused No.1 in a temple at Yeshwanthpur on 13-05-2021. After the marriage, his daughter lived with her husband in an apartment at Yeshwanthpur and his daughter was taken good care for 1-2 months and thereafter the accused started harassing his daughter. That his daughter told that when she went to a temple with accused No.1 after 4 months of the marriage, the first wife of accused No.1 came there and had made lot of galata. That the accused No.1 and 2 did not give food to his daughter and had beaten & tortured her. The accused No.1 was returning home in a drunken state and doing galata. That his daughter had filed a complaint against accused at the police station, which is pending in court. That he has given statement to the police.
26 C.C.No.33385/2021
23. PW8 K.Santosh Kumar, the then P.S.I. of Bagalagunte Police Station in his chief examination has stated that on 22-09-2021, when he was S.H.O., he received the written complaint at Ex.P1 filed by PW1, registered a case under Section 498(A), 504, 506 of the IPC in Crime No.343/2021 and prepared F.I.R. as per Ex.P16 and sent it to the court and his superiors. On the same day, he conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the place shown by PW1 in the presence of PW2 & CW3 and that he had issued notice as per Ex.P17 to PW1 to provide the photos related to the wedding and information about eyewitnesses related to the incident. Pursuant to the said notice, PW1 produced the witnesses PW3 and 4, who are relevant to the case, on 23- 09-2021 he has recorded their statements and that he got enclosed the wedding photos produced as per Ex.P18 to 21 to the file. Further he recorded the statements of PW8, 9, CW8 on 24-09-2021 and of PW5 to 7 on 26-09-2021. That 27 C.C.No.33385/2021 on 29-10-2021, accused persons appeared before him after getting anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble Court and after obtaining surety he released them on bail. PW8 has identified accused No.2 who was before the court. Further stated that he submitted charge sheet to the court, as the investigation was completed and the allegations made against accused persons were proved.
24. PW9 Pavithra being known to PW1 since many years, she deposed in her chief examination that there had been a galata between the accused persons and PW1 since 2015, that the accused were ill treating PW1 physically, mentally and PW1 had injuries on her body for being assaulted. When she inquired about it, PW1 told that her husband was telling her to give him jewelry and money and that her mother-in-law was abetting for the same. That all the accused had kidnapped PW1's child, on 24-09-2021, when 28 C.C.No.33385/2021 PW1 went to the Durgaparameshwari temple in Vidyaranyapura, PW1 saw the accused No.1 there with his second wife and there was a quarrel between PW1 and the accused No.1.
25. PW10 Leena.H. in her chief examination evidence stated that she knows PW1 who is tenant under her of the shop as well as house. That PW1 was telling her about the physical and mental torture given by accused. That the accused No.1 used to beat PW1 for money, when he was drunk. Further PW10 deposed that accused No.2 used to mentally torture PW1, who used to share everything with her as she knew her very well. That during the year 2011, the accused kidnapped PW1's child, which has been told by PW1. Further deposed that during the year 2021, when PW1 went to the Durgaparameshwari temple in Vidyaranyapura, there PW1 had seen accused No.1 with 29 C.C.No.33385/2021 his second wife and there was a quarrel between PW1 and the accused No.1 on the said issue. PW1 had filed a complaint at the Bagalagunte police station. That all the facts were told by PW1 and she also had given a statement to the police.
26. DW1 H.R.Nagarathna being accused No.2 has deposed in her chief examination that she has not lived with the accused No.1 and PW1 for even a single day. That the accused No.1 came only for the funeral of her husband, after his death on 22-10-2020 and identified the certified copy of her husband's death certificate as per Ex.D2. That after filing the case, she is coming to the court alone and accused No.1 is coming separately. When she asked accused No.1 as to why case is filed against her, her son accused No.1 told that he was taken to the Masjid at Y.N.Hosakote and got him married and threatened to kill 30 C.C.No.33385/2021 him, if failed to convert to Muslim community and did not marry. DW1 has identified the certified copy of NIKHA as per Ex.D3. Further DW1 deposed that in the NIKHA, the accused No.1 has signed as Anwar and PW1 has signed as Mamthaz. Further the accused No.1 had told her that PW1 is a Muslim and is telling lie before the court that she is Mamatha. DW1 has identified the copies of school record and T.C. belonging to PW1 as per Ex.D4 and 5. DW1 has further deposed that the accused No.1 has informed that he had been sent a notice for divorce and identified the copies of said notice and divorce application as Ex.D6 and
7. That the accused No.3 lives in Dasarahalli, for which she has submitted a copy of relevant Aadhaar card as per Ex.D8. That the incident is nothing to do with her and accused No.3, as they have no connection with accused No.1, since he has left the house. That there is nothing to relate with the complaint filed by PW1, who has filed a 31 C.C.No.33385/2021 false complaint against them.
27. The learned Sr.APP contended that the prosecution has examined PW1 to 10, wherein PW1 is the victim, PW2 is the mahazar witness, PW3 & 4 are the sister, mother of PW1, PW5 is the second wife of accused No.2, PW6 & 7 are the parents of PW5, PW9 & 10 are the independent witnesses and PW8 is the I.O. All the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and there is corroboration between all the witnesses. Though these witnesses were cross-examined at length, but nothing worth was elicited from their mouth to dis-believe their evidence. Therefore the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed to convict the accused persons for the alleged offences. Further the learned Sr.APP has furnished the decision in AIR 1997 SC 1 in the case of State of Orissa V/s Sharat Chandra Sahu 32 C.C.No.33385/2021 & Another and submitted that accused persons are also liable for conviction under Section 494 of IPC along with the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 504, 506 and 420 of IPC and that the above decision is aptly applicable to the prosecution case.
28. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that the accused No.1 has left the company of PW1. There is no evidence against accused No.2 and 3. That after the marriage, accused No.1 has been forcibly converted to the Muslim community and thereby his name got changed from Anil to Anwar. That the complainant has filed false case against accused persons. In the cross examination, PW1 admitted that they are not residing together from 2021. Also admitted that accused No.2 residing in Tumakuru and accused No.3 is residing in Magadi Road. That as per defence, the accused No.1 was 33 C.C.No.33385/2021 not residing with PW1 from 2011. That there is no physical ill treatment by the accused and no wound certificate is produced. There is no evidence to prove the role of accused No.2 & 3. That due to love marriage, accused No.2 and 3 had break up the relation with accused No.1. Therefore he sought for acquittal of the accused. Further the learned defence counsel filed written arguments and in support of his arguments, the learned defence counsel has furnished certified copy of deposition and judgment in CC No.38010/2011 and also the decisions in Criminal Appeal No.2668/2009 - 2015(2) AKR 67 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench) in the case of Tayawwa V/s Narasappa & Ors., Transfer Petition (C) NO(S).2043/2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dolly Rani V/s Manish Kumar Chanchal and 2018 CRI.L.J.1707 of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court - Ajay Digamber Deogade V/s State of Maharashtra.
34 C.C.No.33385/2021
29. PW1 to 10 have been cross-examined by the learned defence counsel at length and DW1 has been cross- examined by the learned Sr.APP. PW1 in her cross- examination admitted that herself and accused No.1 by not informing in their houses had got married on 12-06-2003 at Arakeshwara Temple of K.R.Nagar. She admitted that her father is of Muslim community. She deposed that after 15 days of her marriage her father died and she admitted that accused No.1 was present during the funeral. She admitted that the parents of accused No.1 were residing at Tumakuru. That she has not taken any treatment in respect of the assault made by accused. She admitted that after the year 2021, herself and accused No.1 did not live together. She admitted that accused No.2 lived separately at Tumakuru. Further she denied the suggestions made by the learned defence counsel.
35 C.C.No.33385/2021
30. PW2 during his cross-examination admitted that PW1 was running a beauty parlor. He further admitted that except himself and Nagendra, none have signed Ex.P2. Further he denied the suggestions made by the learned defence counsel.
31. PW3 during her cross-examination admitted that her father is of Muslim community and mother is Hindu. She deposed that after the marriage of accused No.1 and her sister, they lived in K.R.Nagar for one month. She admitted that in Ex.D1, her sister has signed as Mamathaz and denied that accused No.1 has signed as Anwar. Further she denied the suggestions made by the learned defence counsel.
32. PW4 during her cross-examination has admitted that her husband is of Muslim community and she is Hindu. 36 C.C.No.33385/2021 She admitted that the accused No.1 and her daughter have married at Sub-Registrar Office. Further she denied the suggestions made by the learned defence counsel.
33. PW5 during her cross-examination has stated that during the year 2021, PW1 was introduced. She admitted that the marriage of herself and accused No.1 has not been registered. She denied that her mother-in-law did not reside with them at any time. She admitted that before marrying accused No.1, she has not enquired about his background. Further she denied the suggestions made by the learned defence counsel.
34. PW6 during her cross-examination admitted that before marriage, they have not enquired about the background of accused No.1. She states that she does not know about accused No.1 after conversion had got 37 C.C.No.33385/2021 registered in the mosque and has the name as Anwar. Further she denied the suggestions made by the learned defence counsel.
35. PW7 during his cross-examination admitted that they have collected the particulars of accused No.1 in the Maratha Sangha. That he does not know as to whether the accused No.1 has converted to the Muslim community. Further he denied the suggestions made by the learned defence counsel.
36. PW8 during his cross-examination has admitted that in Ex.P1 there is reference about 10 years ago the accused No.1 saying that he would get marry again. He admitted that in Ex.D1 it has been signed as Anwar and Mamathaz. Further he denied the suggestions made by the learned defence counsel.
38 C.C.No.33385/2021
37. PW9 during her cross-examination stated that from the year 2015 she knows PW1. She admitted that she has not seen directly the galata taken place in between PW1 and accused. She denied that PW1 has told her to depose evidence by giving money. Further she denied the suggestions made by the learned defence counsel.
38. PW10 during her cross-examination deposed that she does not know accused No.2 and 3 personally. She admitted that after the year 2021, accused No.1 is residing along with PW1. She also admitted that accused No.1 never stayed with PW1 in their house. She admitted that she has not given statement before the police as to accused No.3 was telling accused No.1 not to be good with PW1. She does not know about the conversion of accused No.1 to Muslim community after the marriage with PW1. 39 C.C.No.33385/2021 Further she denied the suggestions made by the learned defence counsel.
39. DW1 during her cross-examination admitted that PW1 and accused No.1 have married at K.R.Nagar, where also the names of accused No.1 and PW1 are registered as Anil Kumar and Mamathaz. She admitted that PW1 has deposed during her chief examination evidence that she is of Muslim community and her name was Mamathaz.
40. In this case, PW1 being the first informant has deposed about the ill treatment sustained by her at the hands of accused in detail. She has also stated about lodging of complaint and conducting of spot mahazar by police in the place as shown by her. Of course the marriage and relationship between PW1 with that of accused No.1 is not in dispute. Though the learned defence counsel has 40 C.C.No.33385/2021 cross-examined her at length, but nothing worth was elicited from her mouth, so as to dis-believe her version with regard to the alleged cruelty.
41. Now let us analyze as to whether the defence has made any efforts to show their innocence or to destroy the case of prosecution. On perusal of the entire prosecution evidence available on record and evidence of DW1, one of the defence taken by the accused persons is that the complainant and other persons have forced accused No.1 and took him to mosque and performed the NIKHA forcibly by putting the fear of death. That the accused No.1 has been forcibly converted to Muslim community and thereby his name got changed from Anil to Anwar. But there is no suggestion in the cross-examination of PW1 and other relevant witnesses that the complainant and her parents had forced and threatened accused No.1 to convert him to 41 C.C.No.33385/2021 Muslim community. Further regarding the defence taken by accused that accused No.1 was forced to convert to Muslim community, it appears that till today the accused persons have not lodged any complaint before any proper forum or authority.
42. The accused No.2 who is examined as DW1 has deposed in her chief examination evidence that she never lived with accused No.1 and PW1. The defence taken in chief of DW1 has not been taken in the cross examination evidence of any of the relevant witnesses. In this case, the accused No.1 ought to have entered the witness box to lead defence evidence. In the considered opinion of court, the accused No.1 might be the best defence witness in this case, as per the defence taken by accused persons. But instead of accused No.1, the accused No.2 has examined as DW1, who is a hearsay witness. There is no explanation 42 C.C.No.33385/2021 as to why the hearsay witness has been examined instead of direct witness i.e., accused No.1, who is very much available.
43. The another defence of accused persons is that after the marriage, accused No.1 himself converted to Muslim community. But there is no explanation as to how this suggestion would help the case of defence. On perusal of the Aadhaar Cards of PW1 and her daughter, so also accused No.1, which are on record, the same would clearly show the name of PW1 as Mamatha.M., name of accused No.1 as Anil Kumar.T. s/o Thukaram.B.R. and Anushree.A. d/o Anil Kumar.T. Another defence is that after the marriage of accused No.1 with PW1 he has converted to Muslim community and thereby he himself got changed his name from Anil Kumar to Anwar. But it cannot be said that the accused No.1 who converted from 43 C.C.No.33385/2021 Hindu to Muslim community has not at all harassed his wife. From the defence taken by the accused persons, it appears that they want to establish that Section 498(A) of IPC will not attract to Muslim Community, but there is no such bar in the provision of offence under Section 498(A) of IPC.
44. Further the accused persons have taken defence that accused No.1 has never married PW5 at the instigation of accused No.2 & 3. But the birth certificate of child and the certified copies of the petitions and complaint filed by PW5 against accused produced in this case would clearly goes to show the marriage of accused No.1 with PW5, during the subsistence of marriage with PW1 and also during her lifetime, without taking any divorce. It appears that in all the cases accused No.1 has appeared and filed his objections. In the considered opinion of court, marrying for 44 C.C.No.33385/2021 the second time by suppressing the first marriage to both parties i.e., to first and second wife would amounts to cheating. In this case, the evidence available on record would disclose that the accused No.1 has left the company of PW1 & her daughter and with an intention to cheat PW1, with the help of accused No.2 & 3 and at their instigation had induced PW6 & 7 and married PW5 for the second time.
45. PW3 & 4 being the mother, sister of PW1 and PW9 & 10 being the friend & owner of shop, house where PW1 is tenant have stated about the cruelty sustained by PW1 at the hands of accused. Of course, these witnesses appears to be hearsay, but in the offences like Section 498(A) of IPC normally the incident like harassment and cruelty by husband to his wife would take place in house i.e., within four walls and after the incident there is every possibility 45 C.C.No.33385/2021 that victim may share about the ill treatment by husband or relative of her husband to the people who are very close to her or with people in whom she got trust. Further the said witnesses have stated that they came to know about the cruelty sustained by PW1 from her mouth. But during their cross-examination, nothing worth was elicited from their mouth to discard their version.
46. Even at the time of examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., neither accused No.1 nor other accused have opted to lead defence evidence. But later on the accused No.2 has got examined as DW1. The accused No.1 & 3 have not stepped into the witness box, for the reasons best known to them. Further the wound certificate at Ex.P3 dated 20-06-2011 would disclose the injuries sustained by Mamthaz.M. In Ex.P3 it has been clearly mentioned that assault by husband at home by iron rod. 46 C.C.No.33385/2021 The doctor is not cited as witness in the charge sheet and his evidence is not before the court. But here the PW1 has stated in unequivocal terms that she has sustained mental and physical torture at the hands of accused during her stay with them. Of course the wound certificate produced in the present case is of the year 2011 and the present case has been filed in the year 2021. But as per the case of prosecution, on 18-06-2011 when PW1 and her mother went to the house of accused to enquire about the kidnap of daughter, the accused persons beaten them severely, for which they lodged complaint in Peenya P.S. No doubt the said complaint has been withdrawn on the promise made by accused No.1 that he would not commit any mistake in future. But here the above said wound certificate cannot be brushed aside on the sole ground that the same was issued in the year 2011 and present case of the year 2021, which also shows the cruelty by husband and is evident to the 47 C.C.No.33385/2021 incident took place in the year 2011. It is also to be noted here that PW1 has also lodged complaint, but said complaint has been withdrawn on the promise made by accused No.1 that in future he will take good care of the PW1 and her daughter. This would make clear that the accused No.1 subjected PW1 to cruelty from the year 2011 itself.
47. It is very pertinent to note here that leaving the company of wife without any reason itself amounts to cruelty. In this regard the decision in 2024 SCC Online All 4390 in the case of Abhilasha Shroti V/s Rajendra Prasad Shroti can be relied on, where it was observed that;
"Thus, subjective and inherently varied, individual human behaviour in the context of matrimonial relationship may be construed as cruelty to ones spouse, depending on facts of each case and its proven effect on the other spouse. The complete denial of company to ones 48 C.C.No.33385/2021 spouse, without any justifiable reason, may itself amount to cruelty. It is not cohabitation on physical intimacy that may dictate the definition of cruelty. We are aware that that test if imported may be regressive and in any case outdated. At the same time, any person who enters into matrimonial relationship, does undertake a social and personal obligation to enjoy and share his / her company with their chosen spouse. A spouse who out of choice completely deprives the other of his / her company, for no rhyme or reason may be seen to have committed cruelty when that conduct (continuous and unabated over years) is seen through the eyes of other spouse. A Hindu marriage is a sacrament and not just a social contract where one partner abandons the other without reason or just cause or existing or valid circumstance necessitating that conduct, the sacrament loses its soul and spirit, though it may continue to hold its external form and body. Thus to a third party the form may be visible and they may continue to visualize the marriage as exist at the same time to the spouse the sacrament may remain dead. That death of the spirit and soul of a Hindu marriage 49 C.C.No.33385/2021 may constitute cruelty to the spouse who may be thus left alone devoid of not only physical company completely deprived of company of their spouse, at all planes of human existence"
48. At this juncture, the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2002) 1 Crimes 309 Gananath Pattnaik V/s State of Orissa, can also be relied on, wherein it is held that the concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. Cruelty for the purposes of constituting the offence under the aforesaid section need not be physical. Even mental torture or abnormal behavior may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case. In the decision AIR 2013 SC 329 Vajresh Venkatray Anvekar V/s State of Karnataka, the Hon'ble Court has held that when a woman is subjected to ill treatment within four walls of her matrimonial house, ill treatment is witnessed only by 50 C.C.No.33385/2021 perpetrators of crime, they would not depose about it and the independent witnesses like servants or neighbours do not want to get involved. Further in the decision AIR 1994 SC 1418 State of West Bengal V/s Orilal Jaiswal and Another, the Hon'ble Court has held that the evidence about physical and mental torture of the deceased has come from the mother, elder brother and other close relations. Such depositions by close relations, who may be interested in the prosecution of the accused, need not be discarded simply on the score of absence of corroboration by independent witness. Whether the evidence of interested witness is worthy of credence is to be judged in the special facts of the case. Acts of cruelty by the accused were expected to be known by the very close relations like mother, brother, sister etc.,. The above decisions are aptly applicable to the instant case.
51 C.C.No.33385/2021
49. It is pertinent to note here that in every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution has examined in total 10 witnesses and on plain reading of the evidence, there is corroboration between the evidence of PW1, 3 to 7, 9 and 10 regarding the allegations made against accused No.1 such as cruelty imposed against PW1 and cheating. However it is the human nature where there may be some minor discrepancy in the prosecution cases. But on the ground of minor discrepancy in the case of prosecution, the whole case of prosecution cannot be discarded.
50. I have carefully gone through the principles laid down in the decisions furnished by the learned defence counsel. The said decisions are applicable to the facts and circumstances of cases for the offences punishable under Section 494 and 420 of IPC. But in the case on hand, this 52 C.C.No.33385/2021 court has already altered the charges by deleting the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. As such with great respect, this court is of the considered view that the same are not applicable to the facts & circumstances of this case. Hence considering all the aspects of the case and in totality of circumstances, I am of the firm view that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against accused No.1 only, with regard to the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 420, 504 and 506 IPC. However there is no concrete evidence to show the overt act or manner of cruelty of harassment by accused No.2 & 3 against PW1/complainant. Therefore, I am of the firm view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against accused No.2 & 3 with regard to the above said offences. In the result, I answer the above points accordingly.
53 C.C.No.33385/2021
51. Point No.5:- For the forgoing reasons and my findings to the above points, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 & 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 498(A), 420, 504 and 506 R/W 34 of IPC.
Acting under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 is hereby convicted for the offences punishable u/s 498(A), 420, 504 and 506 of IPC.
Call later for hearing on sentence.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, typed by him, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27th day of March 2026) (SANJEEV KUMAR S. HINDODDI), XXXI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
54 C.C.No.33385/2021ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard on sentence.
The learned Sr. A.P.P. prayed this Court to impose maximum sentence to accused No.1, provided for the offences.
On the other hand, learned counsel for accused submitted that the accused No.1 has no criminal antecedents and first time offender. That the accused No.1 is having old aged mother, who is aged about 69 years and that he is only son and that his mother is suffering from various ailments. Hence prays for lenient view and prayed to give benefit under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.
Having regard to the submission of both the parties, admittedly the offences committed by accused No.1 are against PW1, who is none other than his wife. However considering the facts & circumstances of case, in the 55 C.C.No.33385/2021 considered opinion of court, the accused No.1 is not entitle for the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act.
Section 498(A) of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 420 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 504 and 506 of IPC are punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
It is settled principle of law that sentence imposed shall respond to the cry of society and it should be a lesson to the culprits. Here in this case as already noted, the accused No.1 has committed offences against PW1 being his wife.
56 C.C.No.33385/2021
At this juncture it is pertinent to mention decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 773 State of Rajasthan V/s Mohan Lal wherein it is held at paragraph No.13 which is as under:
"13. From the aforementioned observations, it is clear that the principle governing the imposition of punishment will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the sentence should be appropriate, adequate, just, proportionate and commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime is committed. The gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the crime and all other attending circumstances, have to be borne in mind while imposing the sentence. The Court cannot afford to be casual while imposing the sentence, in as much as both the crime and criminal are equally important in the sentencing process. The Courts must see that the public does not loose confidence in the judicial system. Imposing inadequate sentences will do harm to the justice system and may lead to a state where the victim loses confidence in the judicial system and resorts to private vengeance."57 C.C.No.33385/2021
Keeping in mind the mitigating factors against accused No.1 and considering the above ratio, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused No.1 shall undergo S.I. for 1 year and also pay a fine of ₹50,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.498(A) of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for 9 months.
The accused No.1 shall undergo S.I. for 3 years and also pay a fine of ₹50,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for 9 months.
The accused No.1 shall undergo S.I. for 3 months and also pay a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.504 of IPC, in default of 58 C.C.No.33385/2021 payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for one month.
Further the accused No.1 shall undergo S.I. for 3 months and also pay a fine of ₹1,500/-
for the offence punishable U/s 506 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for one month.
It is made clear that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
Acting under Section 357 of Criminal Procedure Code out of the above stated total fine, an amount of ₹1,00,000/- be paid to the first informant/PW1 Mamatha, who is victim in the case as compensation and remaining amount of Rs.2,500/- shall be paid to the State.
The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled.59 C.C.No.33385/2021
Office to supply free copy of this Judgment to the accused No.1.
In view of direction given by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.1042 of 2025 (482 Cr.P.C./428 BNSS) that this case has to be disposed of the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of order and also further directions issued in Criminal Petition No.3769/2026 for deferring the proceedings, office to intimate Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, about disposal of this case.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, typed by him, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27th day of March, 2026) (SANJEEV KUMAR S. HINDODDI), XXXI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.60 C.C.No.33385/2021
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Mamatha.M.
PW2 : Arun Kumar
PW3 : Asha.M.
PW4 : Ramamma
PW5 : Bhavani
PW6 : Chandrabai
PW7 : Srinivasa Rao
PW8 : K.Santosh Kumar
PW9 : Pavithra
PW10 : Leena.H.
Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P2 : Mahazar
Ex.P3 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P4 : Certified Copy of Property
Document pertaining to
accused
Ex.P5 : Certified Copy of FIR pertaining
to the complaint lodged by PW5
against accused
Ex.P6 : Certified Copy of Complaint in
PCR No.379/2025
Ex.P7 : Certified Copy of Application filed by
PW5 under Section 12(1) of P.W.D.V.
61 C.C.No.33385/2021
Act in Crl. Misc.436/2025
Ex.P8 : Certified copy of the Affidavit in
Enclosure-I filed in the A.C.J.M. Court by PW5 in C.Misc.436/2025 Ex.P9 : Certified copy of the application filed in the court under section 18 of the P.W.D.V. Act by PW5 Ex.P10 : Certified copy of the application filed in the court under section 19 of the P.W.D.V. Act by PW5 Ex.P11 : Certified copy of the application filed in the court under section 20(1)(d) of the P.W.D.V. Act by PW5 Ex.P12 : Certified copy of the application filed in the court under section 23 of the P.W.D.V. Act by PW5 Ex.P13 : Birth certificate of Rutvik Ex.P14 : Pen drive Ex.P15 : Certificate under Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P16 : F.I.R.
Ex.P17 : Notice
Ex.P18 to
P21 : Photographs
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Nil Witnesses examined for the defence:
DW1 : Nagarathna 62 C.C.No.33385/2021 Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Ex.D1 : True copy of Marriage Registration
Certificate
Ex.D2 : Death Certificate of DW1's husband
Ex.D3 : Certified Copy of NIKAH
Ex.D4 : School Admission Extract
Ex.D5 : Duplicate Transfer Certificate
Ex.D6 : Notice
Ex.D7 : Photocopy of Divorce Application
Ex.D8 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card of
accused No.3
Documents marked for identification purpose:
Ex.S1 : Signature of accused No.1 on the Rental Agreement taken place in between accused No.1 & Vasanthamma XXXI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.63 C.C.No.33385/2021
27-03-2026 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 & 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 498(A), 420, 504 and 506 R/W 34 of IPC.
Acting under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 is hereby convicted for the offences punishable u/s 498(A), 420, 504 and 506 of IPC.
Call later for hearing on sentence.
XXXI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
64 C.C.No.33385/202127-03-2026 Orders on sentence pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER The accused No.1 shall undergo S.I. for 1 year and also pay a fine of ₹50,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.498(A) of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for 9 months.
The accused No.1 shall undergo S.I. for 3 years and also pay a fine of ₹50,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for 9 months.
The accused No.1 shall undergo S.I. for 3 months and also pay a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.504 of IPC, in default of 65 C.C.No.33385/2021 payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for one month.
Further the accused No.1 shall undergo S.I. for 3 months and also pay a fine of ₹1,500/- for the offence punishable U/s 506 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for one month.
It is made clear that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
Acting under Section 357 of Criminal Procedure Code out of the above stated total fine, an amount of ₹1,00,000/- be paid to the first informant/PW1 Mamatha, who is the victim in the case as compensation and remaining amount of Rs.2,500/- shall be paid to the State.
The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled.
66 C.C.No.33385/2021
Office to supply free copy of this Judgment to the accused No.1.
In view of direction given by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.1042 of 2025 (482 Cr.P.C./428 BNSS) that this case has to be disposed of the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of order and also further directions issued in Criminal Petition No.3769/2026 for deferring the proceedings, office to intimate Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, about disposal of this case.
XXXI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
67 C.C.No.33385/2021The learned counsel for accused No.1 filed application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C./Section 430(3) of BNSS for suspension of sentence passed by this court.
Heard both sides.
Perused the application. The accused No.1 is desiring to prefer an appeal against the judgment passed by this court, before the Appellate Court.
During trial stage, the accused No.1 was on bail. Today the accused No.1 has been convicted and the sentence of imprisonment imposed is not exceeding 3 years. Reasons are satisfied. In the result, I proceed to pass the following-
ORDER The Application filed by the learned counsel for accused No.1 is allowed as follows;
Sentence of imprisonment is suspended till 30 days, subject to execution of personal bond by accused No.1 for a sum of ₹50,000/-.
Office to take bond.
XXXI ACJM, Bengaluru City.