IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BA;s:£§}Ai;:I3;RE§ .
DATED THIS THE 23% DAY QF JAWAEY éoeg j %
BEFOREK:
was HoN'Bi.E MR.uL:_s'r:CE.§:;.aNA:é'i3.§
CRIMINAL 1=_I§T1T1oN1\:£:.3583 200:3
BETWEEN:
I.
SAMEER AHMED s/QVABDUL EZs.UB'HAN'~.
zzssrxes,
R/ATNo.5«w-,..;,éRDié:Rc:ss--s,
KOD£HA.E.LIA.?RPORT;_ .
BANGALORE 560--~._{§08";{f-- * V V'
AB.3~L.BAsHE%3§e-- " _ .
spa LATE A5901, ;<;g;AD.ER ;
4S3n2:3, V
R/AT N'€).64*4_, 331) C2985;
KODIHALLI AH-2_POR'i',_
BANGALORVE .550 003.
i~EAgI§ERA Wu/"0 é'-.;$«."3'Ui, SUBHAN
_ MAJOR,
..Rf--A_T'NO,64é£, 31:21) CROSS,
" . KO.[)iHALI;£,A.iEPORT,
'1 '~
I 11,
--._E3ANGPL_"LOE2E 560 003.
., PEWEONERS
(By §=;=;:~s. 'KHALEEL PASHA, ADVOCATE}
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY
JEEVANBHIMANAGAR PS
BANGALORE.
A J petiti6z1AV'iaqii:if$i;._pi?i)€;eediI1gs pending therein.
Gwqvefxlmcnt Pleader for the State.
3 --.f3.""ffI'ie"Aleamed counsel for petitioner has made the
h V . .,foIimié*ing submissions: ma,
:2. ARSHIYA JASMIN
25 YRS,
R'/A'1'NO.'?'?'4/B, NEAR' DEEPA EYLE, __ ._ ' --.
KODIHALLI, BANGALORE 560 003. RESPO.NDEI'I_'ES
(By Sri.B.BALAKRISHNA, HCGP FOR '-R 1: T A. 5'
Sri.SUNDAR RAJ FOR my
CRLP FILED ms, 432 PRKY'ING--TG_: hibitior1 Act. They have filed this
-V 2. I f1a5vié: learned counsel for petitioner and
The 21"' respondent herein had V.
Pasha. By suppressing that marriage _A
18′: petitioner, therefore, 211*’ eesiioraoeiut Y
suppression of fact. The Inatxfiageiissioid. 1 ” A’ ‘
The learned counsel
2115 respondent and h.erV~~approae1ied Khazi
to take Khullanama and
marriage wags’ 23¢ respondent
and her petitioner to pay
Rs. would file a dowry case
against fiaerefore, the entire prosecution is
.» .ti1otj\{ai:e(vi._ii’The eominpiation of proceedings before the
be abuse of process of court.
H ” Government Pleader would justify
_ initiation of prosecution and continuation of
« before the court below.
5. in a decision. reported in AIR 2008 so 737 the
_1Siopreme Court has held The High Court should be
N . C,g(Wg::x «Mia
petitioner before this court it is not possib1e–‘«jto:’f’ho%§l
that continuation of proceedings before
would be abuse of procoss of K K
contended by the petitioners is
to take up such defenVoe::””b¢fo15é ‘V V
Therefore, I do not .fi;1d ‘gro:;-mcls A’to’-quézsh the
procoedings. V’ %
Ac<mamg:y,pe:aaon amassed.
back the records along
with a of 1
Judge