Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1237 (KAR)

Ganesh Kumar V v. State

2023-10-25

H.P.SANDESH

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for the State. This petition is filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings arising out of Crime No.16/2013 pertaining to Sarjapura Police Station. 2. The accusation made in the charge sheet against this petitioner who happens to be the husband of the complainant that the marriage of the complaint was solemnized with this petitioner on 26/5/2010 and at the time of marriage, they have given an amount of Rs.75, 000.00; gold neck chain weighing 32 grams; finger ring weighing 7 grams and a watch towards dowry. 3. Thereafter, the complainant had joined her matrimonial home. After three months of the marriage, accused Nos.1 and 2 again demanded for an additional dowry saying that if they married some other girl, they would have get more dowry than this. It is also allegation against accused Nos.1 and 2 that they have subjected her for harassment both mentally and physically after giving birth to the girl child and also demanded for an additional amount of Rs.3.00 lakh in order to take a house for lease. It is also an allegation against this petitioner that on 16/1/2013, both accused Nos.1 and 2 at 6.30 p.m., abused her and assaulted her. Hence, she gave the complaint and the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet and recorded the statement of witnesses. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that this petitioner is working as a Police and the allegation against this petitioner is that on 16/1/2013, he assaulted the complainant but on that date, he was not in station since he had accompanied with the High Court Judge who have traveled to Gulbarga by train and he came back to the Bengaluru on 17/1/2013. Hence, it is clear that a false allegation is made against this petitioner. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for the State would vehemently contend that the police have conducted the investigation and recorded the statement of the complainant as well as the witnesses including eyewitnesses i.e., CW2 to CW6 wherein they have spoken with regard to the receipt of dowry and subjecting her for cruelty. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for the State would vehemently contend that the police have conducted the investigation and recorded the statement of the complainant as well as the witnesses including eyewitnesses i.e., CW2 to CW6 wherein they have spoken with regard to the receipt of dowry and subjecting her for cruelty. The counsel also submits that the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that he was not present at the time of alleged incident hence, it is a defence of alibi and the same cannot be relied upon at this stage since the petitioner has to prove the same at the time of trial. Hence, it is not a case for quashing the proceedings. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record and the statement of the complainant as well as the witnesses. The allegation against this petitioner is that he assaulted the complainant along with accused No.2 and also demanded for additional dowry even though they have received the dowry along with gold ornaments. Apart from that, the allegations are made against this petitioner that he subjected the complainant for harassment and offences invoked against him are Ss. 323, 498A read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. When such allegations are made, the document which have been produced before this Court regarding accompanying the High Judge for Escort duty alone cannot be a ground to invoke Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. It is rightly pointed out by the learned HCGP that the defence which has been taken is on the ground of alibi and alibi has to be proved by the accused at the time of trial and burden is on him and not at this stage. Hence, I do not find any ground to invoke Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings when investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and statement of eye-witnesses were also recorded before the IO. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. 7. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of six months from today since the matter is of the year 2015 and the alleged incident is of the year 2013. 8. The parties and their respective counsel are directed to assist the Trial Court in disposal of the case. 9. 7. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of six months from today since the matter is of the year 2015 and the alleged incident is of the year 2013. 8. The parties and their respective counsel are directed to assist the Trial Court in disposal of the case. 9. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.