SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor and the learned senior counsel Smt. Pramila M. Nesargi on behalf of the second respondent-de-facto complainant.

(2.) Facts in brief are that a complaint has been filed by the wife of petitioner against her husband and her in laws for the offence punishable under Section 498 A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4, 5 & 6 of DP. It is the contention of the accused No.2 to 4 that accused No.4 was working at Bangalore and went to Germany on 17.07.2008 and thereafter he came to India on 03.10.2008 for his marriage. Again on 19.10.2008 he left India and returned to India on 30.08.2009. Thereafter, on 08.11.2009 he again went to Germany and came to India on 25.04.2010. Hence, the contention of the accused is that accused No.4 was not in the house of the accused No.1 as on the date of alleged incident. Further it is also contended that accused No.2 and 3 are parents of accused No.1 and are residing at Raichur District and they are not in a position to come to house of the accused No.1 and it is their contention that there was no material to frame charge against accused No.2 to 4.

(3.) The petitioner is before this court being aggrieved by the order passed by the court of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) and JMFC, Mandya in Crime No.175/2010 on the discharge application preferred by the petitioner. On perusal of the order passed by the court of the JMFC, it is seen that the court has not referred to any specific material but has merely made a general observation that on perusal of the entire material on record, there is a sufficient material of harassment by respondent Nos.2 to 4 and in the same breadth it is further observed as follows:-