High Court Karnataka High Court

Mrs Sunita Kumari vs State Of Karnataka on 19 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Mrs Sunita Kumari vs State Of Karnataka on 19 March, 2009
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala
Ci'E.P N0572/2009
&
Misc.CrE.569/2009

EN THE PHGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1913* DAY OF MARCH 2009 .

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVA'f'SALA'~  A'

CRIMINAL PETITION No.::372/2GQ9«_ -I' '
86    .
MISC. CRL. NOT559/2009'-._

BETWEEN

Mrs. Sunita Kumari,

Age: 37 years,

W/0 Mr. Manoj Kumar, -. v
N0.B4-356, Kendriya Vihar,   .  A
Venkatala Amanikere,     , '
Yeiahanka, H   _. , .   

Bar1ga1ore-560 064.? i   _   " _   ' Petitioner

{By Mrs. Rupa B"P__, Adm', Aésociates, Advs.,
for petitioner)  . .  ' p 

AND: . 

1. State» Qf'I{arniataiKaV,ii"'V __
By Yelahanka PQ'1iee"Statiion,

:fBanga10re«  V'  
aRe'p. by State Pub.1iC"}7rosecutor,

High Court of Karnataka,

« - -B.ajvngei1ore»56O 

 M--ré;-- E_\Eoor¥3;1s~Sahr Siddiqui,
v  V._Age.' 36 years",
 i  WV]"o--._Dr. Afgha M A Siddiqui,
.  A _No..E2~3¥~2,09, Kendriya Vihar,
V" _. ' A Venkeitala Amanikere,



Cr1.P No.572f2009
&
Misc.Crl.569/2009

Bellary Road,
Banga1ore--56O 064. Re spondents

(By Sri A V Ramakrishna, HCGP, for respondent No.1)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482″ Code. of .g
Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the “proegeedinpgsr 1 WC I

No.2l545/2008 on the file of CMM, Bangalore. . -r

Misc. Crl. No.s69/2009 is filed under seem, 482ilo.fvthe Ciocie

Criminal Procedure, praying to stay’v–.l4g(further ‘proce_dings in C C
No.2l5-45/2008 on the file ofC M M, Bangalore: ”

These cases coming on for_..}¥;dmiissiond.ay, the Court made
the foilowingi * T’ =

The petitivoner/acicosed.VinuCi”C___l’«lo.21545/2006 on the file of Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate’ is before this Court under
Section 482 of the Codejof Procedure praying for quashing the

crirnina’l-proceedings for theiioffences under Sections 335, 509, 326 and

. S06 ofme’ ~i§fe15’ai.:cpde.

2. LeiarnedVCou3nse1 for the petitioner submits that the ingredients

«–ofi..1S~e.ction 326″ofi’il P C is not made out and apart from that there are

«dajifis deiay in filing the complaint. ft is further submitted that now

‘_ stage for framin s.

Cri.P No.5″/’2/20(}9
&
Misc.Cri.569/2009

3. The petitioner has got all the statutory remedy to address
arguments for discharge, if there is no prima facie case, beforegt-hie.._triaI

Court. I see no good ground to entertain the Petition.

4. In the result, the Petition failsjiianciilii ”

dismissed.

survive and it is accordingly rejected. it .3

Consequently, stay petition not