SUNIL SANDUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is preferred seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.866/2012 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) THE brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that: A lady by name Vani Sandur lodged a private complaint in PC No.72/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 323, 341, 504, 504 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against three accused persons. This petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3. The learned Magistrate on receipt of the complaint referred the matter for investigation and report to the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The police have submitted the charge sheet and the accused persons, particularly accused Nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the Court by virtue of summons issued against them. The trial Court due to the absence of this petitioner arrayed as accused No.3, split up the case against him and tried the other accused persons i.e., accused Nos. 1 and 2 by name Pavan Kumar Sandur and Smt. Rama Sandur, W/o. Late Vishnuthirthanchar. After due contest, the said case ended in acquittal of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 vide judgment dated 12.02.2013 in C.C.No.29/2011. It appears the spilt up case is registered against this petitioner in C.C.No.866/2012 which is pending on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet. In C.C.No.866/2012, the learned Magistrate has issued Non -Bailable Warrant against the petitioner herein on several occasions and the case is pending before the trial Court at present. At this juncture, present petition is filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.866/2012.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that there is absolutely no allegation of whatsoever against this petitioner. Moreover, the allegations made against the other petitioners were also not proved to the satisfaction of the Court. Therefore, the trial Court after considering the detail evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused Nos. 1 and 2. This petitioner also stands on the same footing as that of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Even if it is ordered that the petitioner to undergo an ordeal of trial, no ideal purpose would be served in doing so and it is mere waste of valuable time of the Court. Therefore, he contends that the said proceedings deserved to be quashed.