I--"
K 1
*1
*3
kg')
..£_.
LO
L.)
\£>
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED wars THE 6" DAY or FEBRUARY, 2010'T "
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.s. PAcH3AeUfimg=W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.94? §§"20o§-e
BETWEEN:
1. Krishnappa Kotian,"--t g.g--,,
S/0. Late Seshu Poojary,i*"
Aged about 78ayea:syw.=
2. Susheela Ketien, _d.€,fi '_ A "W
W/o. KrishnappaT£ot;an,_"_'
Aged about 62 years,'Q ,""
PetitionefS,1H&f2-are residents of
R/o.#29a55/B;jc,p,o:,co1ony,
fm Street, Lakmipurefw"
Tambaram,West,_ . s
Chennai ¥'600_045}
53'; _ p;a;--,{m1.,1a,,_ Kot "
,'W/0, Prashenth,
"Aged about 34 years,
'd~,,4. dpfashanth,'
Sic. Late K. Chodappa,
Aged about 35 years,
Petitioners 3 & 4 are r/0.
,"C/e. B.N.Krishnamurty,
';1" Floor, Shabri Kripa No.1,
H}8m Cross, 8"'Main,
SBM Colony, Church Road,
Brindavan Nagar,
New Chamundeshwari Bus Stami
Mathikere,
Bangalore ~ 560 054.
N
x
W
T1
\.L
.5;
LG
~..
C3'
\_{>
5. Rahul Kotian,
S/o. Krishnappa Kotian,
Aged about 32 years,
Associate Administration Department,
Operational Division Head Office,
P.O.Boxm3865, Abu Dhabi,
United Arab Emerates,
Now here in India. '"
6. Bakul K. Kotian,
S/o. Krihnappa Kotian,
Aged about 38 years,
R/o.29w55B, CTO Colony, _
?" Street, Lakshmipuram,y,.h
Tambaram West, VJR. 7 «, 'lg
Chennai. "--u.,i anf L "yPETITIONER/S
[By M/s.S.E. Partners &,Ajith-A}$hetty,'Advs.3
AND:
Jyothi Kotian,"i, H a
W/0. Bakul,KOtian,,V, ,
Age about 32 years, AV."
R/o. Om Nivas," , '_ 2 _,
Near Mahalingeshwara Temple,
Euttur Village, Santhekatte Post,
fUdupi'Taluk,and Distriot. m RESPONDENT/S
{By*Sri,&gyEhargav, Adv_}
1l"k'k
'd»nThis Crl.P. is filed u/Section 482 Cr.P.C. by
the, Advocate for the petitioners praying to set
aside the order dated 31.10.2008 passed by the Addl.
""cq (:r.nn.) and JMC, Udupi, in C.C.No.4654/08 and
"quash the proceedings thereon.
This Crl.P. coming on for Admission on this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for setting aside the
Order dated 31.10.2008 in c.c. mo.4654/2003_;”‘:Ec::’_~-.1::he..vu
offence under Sections 493-2., 594, 50s1(.2.),_’_j’-V;/:»::}’ .34′
IPC and under Section 4 of the DowrygProhihitionuhct_T
[hereinafter referred to as Fthe Act” for short} andr
to quash the proceedings thereon)
2. The facts relefiant for the purpose of this
petition are as under:
The yetitionere herein are accused Nos.1 to 6
before the Court aside Efhe respondent has filed a
complaint Beforex’the”.fiagistrate, udupi alleging
cruelty; and harassment at the hands of the
Apetitionersl i e,, the accused. Ir: para_ 8 of ‘the
complaint” she :states that the 1″ accused i.e.,
lpetitionereNof6 herein left India after the marriage
*«jfofl2 months and after 2 weeks thereafter, accused 2
‘and,3.have taken the complainant to Bangalore to one
l”of the relatives house and started quarrelling and
‘H’»».al3using in filthy language and also threatened to
bring more gold and sent her to her parental house.
After 2 weeks, the complainant went to her
Mi
matrimonial house at Madras and stayed there. It is
alleged that accused 2 to 6 have harassed her 55;”;
months and thrown the complainant to street: Havifi9;”_
no other way, she is residing with her parents.in’
Udupi. In this context, she has alleged}theHgrounds_}
against the petitioners for the offence punishahle
under Sections 493-22., 504, S’G§'(2) I15’c,_”r.’«;.r..°,34 19::
and under Section 4 of the Act.n~’
The learneds.Magistrate darts; rrecording the
statement of _fifie gcomplainanti has “taken cognizance
and registered the criminal complaint. Aggrieved by
the sameév this .p§§iti§nH is triled by the accused
seeking quashing of the proceedings.
Bli uiThe learnedv counsel for the petitioners
Asubmits that the learned Magistrate at Udupi has no
jurisdiction, to* entertain the complaint as the
Voffences garei alleged to have taken place at
4”?iEangalore¥and Madras and that there is no allegation
“a5¢ut._ commission of the offence within the
d”jurisdiction of the Court at Udupi. On these
H* grounds, he has sought for quashing the proceedings.
He also relied on the decision of the Apex Court
v<~
/-e ~ ,–7, A ,1 :'\ ; rw r
: V': vl»-~–A,:;:'—/é
5 ' .', . . ..x "I 4- x.: .1
reported in (2007)l Supreme Court Cases 262; Manish
Ratan and Others Vs. State of M.P. and others.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent
submits that there are no allegations with regard te_
commission of the offence within the jurisdiction ofifii
the Magistrate Court at Udupl.,__anc:”””t’haég-a;
complainant would file her Complaint~”Vto*._the’ de:in:£’?1.n_’
within-whose jurisdiction théggrfence is’coenitted.i
In the circumstances, he snhnits to fifihash the
proceedings with liberty’ to ‘file ithe conplaint
before the Courtp within xwhose ljnrisdiction the
alleged ofifence has been committed.
5. i have.heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and also tne respondent.
6;%’A$ Gould be seen from the decision cited
snprap wherein it is held that in view of Section
“cr”;l:>.c’.’,V–7j’;_ gvhieh ordains that offence shall
l, ordinarily} be inquired into and ‘tried. by a Court
»_fiithin whose local jurisdiction it was committed and
“,’ze.”sueh circumstance, the Hon’ble Apex Court
directed to transfer the case by exercising
jlzrisdiction vested with Article 142 of the
5 ¥:é.F 9%9fD9
Constitution. As could be seen from the principle
laid~down. by the Hon’ble Apex Court and also the
allegations in ‘the complaint, nowhere it has pbeen
stated by the complainant that the cause or action ,
has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Qourt at f
Udupi. So, taking into consideration_uc and under Section 4 of the Act
are hereby”fiuashed with liberty to the respondent to
file the cofiplaint before appropriate Court in whose
4” jurisdiction the crime is alleged to have committed.
,/ Sd/~
IUDGE
u<_Ksm*