YAMEEN AHMED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned advocates for the petitioners and also for respondent No.2 and perused the records.

(2.) THE petition is filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in Crime No.160/2013 and all further investigation, pending on the file of Halasurgate Women Police Station and consequently, the FIR registered before the 6th Additional CMM at Bangalore, against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the crime. Though the first petitioner and the second respondent are residing separately in a rented house and all other petitioners are residing separately and they never came to the house of the second respondent and the first petitioner; in order to wreak vengeance against the first petitioner, the entire family members of the first petitioner have been dragged into by the second respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners also tried to persuade me by means of reading the deposition of the second respondent in a domestic violence case in C.Misc.No.171/2013 on the file of MMTC -III, Bangalore, and submitted that in the said case, a statement has been made during the course of cross -examination disowning her own statement made in the examination -in -chief. He also contends that even if reading the entire First Information Report, it does not disclose any specific allegations against petitioners 4 to 6. It is only alleged that the first petitioner - husband and in -laws have demanded Rs.10 Lakhs and also threatened her, abused her and assaulted her in that regard and therefore he contends that when there is no specific allegation made in the First Information Report, there cannot be any investigation on such basis.