LAWS(KAR)-2020-9-204

ARVIND RAO H.T Vs. KUMUDA

Decided On September 22, 2020
Arvind Rao H.T Appellant
V/S
Dr Kumuda Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have sought to challenge the legality and correctness of the order dated 03.10.2016 passed in Crl.RP.70/2016 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, confirming the order dated 18.04.2015 passed by the JMFC (III Court), Mangaluru, in Crime No.14/2015 of Women Police Station, Mangaluru, registering the criminal case as C.C.No.1609/2015 and ordering issuance of process/summons to the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) , 504 , 506 read with 34 of IPC .

(2.) The facts leading to this petition are that a criminal case is registered in Crime No.14/2014 of Women Police Station, Mangaluru, against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) , 504 , 506 read with 34 of IPC on the file of JMFC (III Court), Mangaluru, on the complaint of respondent No.1 herein. After investigation, the Police filed 'B' final report. Respondent No.1 herein filed objection to the final 'B' report filed by the Police on 07.02.2015. On 19.02.2015, the sworn statement of respondent No.1- complainant was recorded and on 25.02.2015, further sworn statement of the respondent No.1-complainant was recorded and Exs.P-1 to P-15 were marked. Two other witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 on behalf of the respondent No.1-complainant. On 18.04.2015, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) , 504 , 506 read with 34 of IPC and issued process to the petitioners herein. Consequently, a case has been registered in C.C.No.1609/2015 and the said case is now pending in the Court of JMFC (III Court), Mangaluru. The revision petition preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed by the order dated

(3.) 10.2016 passed in Crl.RP.No.70/2016 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-complainant and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2-State. Perused the records.