NALINI AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS /accused Nos. 4, 5 in split change sheet in CC No. 1040/2007 on the file of Prl. JMFC at KGF for the offence punishable under Sections 498A r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, are before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying for quashing the proceedings in the above -said case. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are married sisters of accused No. 1. He also submits that petitioner No. 1/accused No. 4 was married and residing in abroad at London; whereas petitioner No. 2/ accused No. 5 -elder sister of petitioner No. 1, married and residing at Hyderabad and there was on good ground for the Police to file charge sheet against the accused for the above -said offence. He also submits that accused Nos. 1 to 3 faced trial in CC No. 545/2006 and accused No. 1/husband of the complainant, accused No. 2/mother -in -law of the complainant and accused No. 3/brother -in -law of the complainant faced trial and by judgment dated 13.8.2012, all the three accused were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, he submits that there is no material available against the petitioners to proceed in the split charge sheet registered in CC No. 1040/2007 and prays for quashing the proceedings. He relies upon a decision reported in Mohammed Ilias Vs. State of Karnataka, II (2001) DMC 353 , on the point when the case was split up and charge sheet laid for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 307 of IPC against the absconding accused and when other accused were acquitted, evidence produced in the case of accused cannot be different from the one produced by the prosecution against the other accused and thee is no possibility of conviction.

(2.) LEARNED High Court Government Pleader submits that the present petitioners were absconding and therefore case was split up and the petitioners are not entitled to seek any relief. He further submits that he has no knowledge as to whether the judgment dated 13.8.2012 on the file of Add. Senior Civil Judge/JMFC at KGF was challenged in Appeal or not.

(3.) IN view of the above and the decision reported in the above -said Mohammed Ilias's case, petitioners are entitled to succeed. In the result, I pass the following order: Petition is allowed and the further proceedings in CC No. 1040/2007 on the file of Addl. Senior Divil Judge/JMFC at KGF, for the offence under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, is quashed, with liberty to the respondent/State to recall this order in the event of the respondent/State succeeding in getting the judgment date 13.8.2012 made in CC No. 545/2006 is set aside.