J.M.F.C.. Dharwad, alleging that the parent-s-in-law the
husband have eomxnitted the offence of dowry hams-s.r:1e_rItfttrid
also for the offerme ptmishable under Sec. 3 b
View of the complaint made by the fdt.J1″1er.’ ‘th.e”Cot1:*t.__h’a;~:. take
cognizance. accordingly case has been..regjstered.;_; The 1e’ar’11ed~..
counsei for petitioner SE.tbn1itS”V€;~}fi1Vét’t. the tzatrentes of deceased
have given a state1nent.be[o1’e the Tigtiutlier.Execttti’ve'”I\/Iagistrate
on 04/03/2008. The copitesgtoftt–hVe:’sa_t;ie been produced
at Annexure-A 8; ‘~-Accordtrig§t.o~,the_:compiaiiltt their daughter
has died at lfo ,0}; irtformatjorr both of
them hit’-{e rusljtedctot’i;he”tre’s-i_de1ice of the deceased and from
there to I”£'(JS]3Vi’:.E1I.’.” Ta1t.1k .£Cxecu.t1’ve Matgist.rate has
1’ecordsf:d’ the stavternterlt of parerlts of the deceased,. In front. of
the the deceased. that t.oo within 8. period of one
0i’.I’W’0’AhOti*ii$ *.he”Ta1uk Exetttttive. M’agistrat.e has made the
parertts to ‘x”;1Vai*i§e statement. as to whether the parents«1’I1~Eaw
‘4″..a”r;r.A;I _hUSbi.1tE.d are responsible for the death. The Executive
_E\’/istggisst’rr=ét1.1’1c)1.V’e0’mLin_gour
from the statement of ihe p’cli’€Iii’.S_” as to__how 21I1C31’d’?;.{.:i;§Fha”i§ tirrisgtde.
the Executive Magistrate has “’em:d”:1’eeQrded the
statement. Hence, bothythe the parents are
suspicious statements. Ih_{h_e hjyste-r”iQL1sV._’jei;’cun1staneeS the
“aluk EX€CLI1.i\’G,’viVE:€:’_V,iS1’E”£i:i..€? liias re’eorded-I_.he s”La1.emer1i.. Under
these cireunisiahe-:’s,» V1*fir:d_jii—«i,s ‘not a Case for imerfference.
Accordingly. .pe1.i14Ai’Q11V’i’s dismissed.
Crib-V.VV_i66.29/2009 does not survive for
eozzsivdereiijotii,”hence it is dismissed.
. 2 i ” }”:1″I’1’IT3–/f
Sd/-
JUDGE