MANJULA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the impugned order dtd. 30/12/2019 passed in C.C.No.1239/2018 by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Davanagere, dismissing the application filed under Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Ss. 498A, 506 and 114 of IPC.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 had lodged the complaint with the police making the allegation against this petitioner and other accused persons that the petitioner had participated during the marriage talks and demanded and accepted the dowry. After the marriage, the complainant was subjected for additional dowry and both mental and physical harassment and she was also caused life threat. The police after the investigation filed the charge sheet. The petitioner herein, who has been arraigned as accused No.5 had filed the application for discharge and the learned Magistrate after considering the material on record, vide order dtd. 30/12/2019 rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that in the complaint, only an omnibus allegation is made against the petitioner herein and there is no specific overt act allegations against her. Learned counsel also would contend that the learned Judge has not considered the material on record in its entirety and has rejected the application only on the ground that at the instigation of the petitioner and others, the offences are committed. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the incriminating material collected during the investigation in proof of involvement of accused No.5 has to be tested during the course of the trial. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she was undergoing treatment at the hospital at that relevant point of time and hence, she was unavailable. Hence, the very approach of the trial Court in rejecting the application is erroneous.