S GOPAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are accused no. 5 and accused No. 6. They have questioned the order passed by the learned Trial judge allowing the application of the prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE matter arises in the following manner : one Kalavathi wife of accused No. 1 Y. N. Sridhar Murthy has lodged a complaint on 14-3-2000 before the Jeevanbheemanagar police Station stating that she was married to A-l on 14-5-1981. During marriage, her father had given one set of gold bangles, one set of ear- rings and Mati with other gold ornaments including necklace weighing 30 grams. A-l, her husband was also given a dowry of Rs. 50,000/ -. In the wedlock, she has given birth to two children one daughter and one son who are aged 18 years and 16 years respectively. The complainant would state that all the accused persons demanded additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000 /- and were giving pinpricks but, however, her father-in-law Narayanachari used to mediate but however after his death on 5-3-1996, the said demand for dowry continued and they also threatened her that if the said demand is not met, A-1 would marry again. In the circumstances, the complaint was filed. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered by the Jeevan beemanagar Police for the offence punishable under S. 498-A, I. P. C. Investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, material evidence was collected and on the basis of the material evidence, it was found that a case has been made out as against A-l to A-3. But however, in so far as a-4, A-5 and A-6 are concerned, it was stated that no case has been made out and consequently, they were not sent for trial and they were given up. The case was registered in cc No. 22846/00 and is pending on the file of the Xth Addl. CMM, Bangalore. During the course of the cross-examination of the complainant, a suggestion was made that a-5 and A-6 were not harassing the complainant, but however, the suggestion was denied. On the basis of the said denial, an application was moved by the State under s. 319 of the Cr. P. C. to implead them in the said proceedings. The learned trial Judge has allowed the said application and the order of arraying them as A-5 and A-6 is questioned in this petition.

(3.) MR. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the complainant with A-1 took place some time in the year 1981 at Thirupathi. They have children who have attained majority and at this point of time, the question of initiating proceedings under S. 498-A is not at all warranted. In so far as A-5 and A-6 being impleaded, he would submit that there is no material to implead them inasmuch as during the course of investigation no material was found to implicate them. Hence, they were given up and they were not sent for trial. He would also submit that a-5 and A-6 are staying away from the family of A-1. In the circumstances, he submits that the question of petitioners being impleaded as A-5 and A-6 does not arise.