RAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Sec. 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the order dtd. 17/2/2025 passed in S.C.No.233/2019 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi (Itinerary Court, Chittapur), whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the application filed by the prosecution under Sec. 319 of Cr.P.C. and impleaded petitioner No.1 as additional accused No.4.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that one Basavaraj is the husband of respondent No.2 and their marriage was solemnized on 24/3/2014. Thereafter, respondent No.2 lived in the matrimonial home for a period of one year. Later, her husband and other in-laws started to ill-treat respondent No.2 for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000.00. Though a panchayat was convened, the same went in vain and the husband and his other family members continued to harass her. Left with no other option, she left the matrimonial home and started residing at her parental house and lodged the complaint against her husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law, which was registered in Crime No.188/2017 dtd. 6/11/2017 by respondent No.1 - police for the offences punishable under Ss. 323, 504, 498A read with Sec. 34 of the IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Thereafter, respondent No.1 - police conducted investigation and laid charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 i.e., the husband and parents-in-law of respondent No.2 by dropping the petitioner/impleaded accused No.4 i.e., brother-in-law. Thereafter, the case was set for trial and during the course of evidence, PW-1 i.e., respondent No.2 stated about the involvement of this petitioner that he being the brother-in-law, instigated accused Nos.1 to 3 for harassment and also assaulted her with hands. As such, the prosecution filed an application under Sec. 319 of Cr.P.C. to include this petitioner as additional accused and the said application was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, this petition to quash the order dtd. 17/2/2025.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner so also learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 State. Though respondent No.2 is served, she remained absent.