BATTULA SREEDEVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the petitioners' counsel and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State.

(2.) The counsel who was represented on behalf of respondent No.2 sought permission of this Court for retirement and permitted to retire. Thereafter, respondent No.2 did not choose to engage other counsel.

(3.) The petitioners in the petition is contended that the marriage of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 2.6.2002 and thereafter, the case was registered in Crime No.109/2005 under Section 498(A) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. against respondent No.2 and his inmates those who have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 6.