High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt P S Chitra W/O Dwarakanath C N vs State By The Station House Officer on 11 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt P S Chitra W/O Dwarakanath C N vs State By The Station House Officer on 11 August, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KAR.HA'l'AKA AT BANGfiLOF".,E

DATED was THE'. 1 vb DAY op' AUGUST, 2009' 'f ~ V,

BEFORE

THE ir~iON'Bi..E MR.JUSTICE sua:.~15s§§'é,.V'A'D711}'   

CRIMINAL PETITION      

BETWEEN:   

SMT'. RS. CHYTRA,

wxo. DWARAKANTAI-1'{1_.N.
AGED ABOUT 45 Y{9A¥¥S.]

RESIDENCE AT 1R£;,3 
§§1AS'E'PARK}20lf';D,      

MAL:,EswARAM,._   '  
BANGALORE %-w5;50V%oo3--;::;_  ~

I '~ '1. ....PE'I'ITIONER
(IN CRLP 910.344/2009)

  ~(By"3;i;i£.»S.:'P,x1é*rHAsARATH: 85
" ' 9;-;;.M.';e.s:21i<2ar~z*1*2aAdvs.)

--'K.'M.SI'r§RAM V "   ..... .. «
 310 Law MUTHI} KRISHNA risk,
'AGES 'ABOUT5  3. ' YEARS,

RBLs:*£:~:[re'a:3. ££'I',_ :~:;*4; 1;. 13,
SUE: RAl_\_«L!§.I~I'f££" ;\1_A€';é.R ,
RAJAQJELBIAGAR :g_m:>r'sTAGE,

 E3ANGAE.»_QRE_§'-4 €560 010. ..PE'}'I'I'I<")NER

(IN CLRLP 930.345/2009)

{By Sri.M.S.F'AR'THASARA'I'HI 85
SriKM.P.SI-?II{AN'¥'H Adve.)

V   STATE: BY

THE STNFIGN HOUSE OFFICER,
VIJAYANAGAR' }'3C)I.iCE $3'{'A"l'}ON,

VMAYAHAGAR,
BANGALORE --» 560 040*



-4-
against body, agaixxst repufaizioxi. against the damage. In this
case, the compiainant aileges that, she is the wife and thegfeafter

the petitioner during the subsistezme of the saici maI1*ia;g"e_ i}.as

disfaoneatiy married another woman. in my  .
case is made out for the ofience ymlishaljle under'   " ~ 'V

the IPC. The allegation also (10 revealed the .éafi;e.t;<i:e' 

under Secfion 506 of the IPC.

5. in so far as the juIis{iicfio_;ei:eo:;eerfieé.;[_ 'vtvlhe eomplaint
is filed. Second m3niage~--..._i$  'Vyalikaval police
jzuisdiction. in is in__this  fife observed that,

investigation to be'    V'§:fa.h,:;k"f;i€!e:.$"':§)oIiee. There is no

error of jurisdictaien, .443"  itfielf is filed before the

Vijayanagar police;  "after itxvestigation and

after tzoliecting infoxmetinji h.a..3  charge sheet.

  _ve:iiser:w:.»tions are made on the interpretation

gmder Seeiéoiie  of the IPC, hewever, they are only

fc$;t*V;.1A:'i3e  of.--__é:m:eic1e1'ing this getition. These obsexvaticms

*APf -

be"influeI1<':e.the trial Court; while considering the matter
  -

‘z?see;2I?:ii11gly, both the petitions axe dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE