Karnataka High Court
Sandeep Nagaranthal vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9216 OF 2022
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.264 OF 2024
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.19466 OF 2022
IN CRL.P NO.9216 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAMRATA LOGISHETTY
D/O SRI. SHRAVAN KUMAR LOGISHETTY
1ST PETITIONER DELETED VIDE ORDER
DATED 30.01.2024
2. MR. SHRAVAN KUMAR LOGISHETTY @
SHRAVAN LOGISHETTY
S/O L. JANARDHAN RAO,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
3. MRS. SREEDEVI LOGISHETTY
W/O SHRAVAN KUMAR LOGISHETTY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
2
4. MR. GAURAV LOGISHETTY
S/O MR. SHRAVAN KUMAR LOGISHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
5. MRS. HEMALATA LOGISHETTY
W/O LATE L. JANARDHAN RAO,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 ARE R/AT:
H. NO.D-15 VIKRAMPURI,
OPP: APOLLI HOSPITAL, SECUNDERABAD,
TIRUMALAGIRI, HYDERABAD - 500 009.
6. SRI. R. G. SOMASHEKAR GOWDA
S/O SRI. RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
NO.124, 1ST "B" MAIN ROAD, 6TH BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MAHESH S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MARATHAHALLI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. MR. GOPINATH NAGAR ANTHAL
S/O N.A. NARASIMHALU,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
VILLA 24, VASWANI WHISPERING PALMS,
8, 2ND CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT,
MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 037.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. JAYNA KOTARI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. AZHAR MEER, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND ITS
CONSEQUENT INVESTIGATION IN CR.NO.201/2022 OF THE
Ist RESPONDENT MARATHAHALLI POLICE STATION FOR
OFFENCE P/U/S.384, 306, 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AGAINST
THE PETITIONER HEREIN PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
HON'BLE 29th ADDITIONAL CMM COURT, MAYO HALL,
BENGALURU CITY.
IN CRL.P NO.264 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
NAMRATA LOGISHETTY
D/O SRI. SHRAVAN KUMAR LOGISHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
H. NO. 15, VIKRAMPURI, OPP: APOLLO HOSPITAL,
SECUNDERABAD, TURIMALAGIRI,
HYDERABAD - 500 009.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHESH S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MARATHAHALLI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. MR. GOPINATH NAGAR ANTHAL
S/O N.A. NARASIMHALU,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
NO.27, VASWANI WHISPERING PALMS,
2ND CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT,
MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 037.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. JAYNA KOTARI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. AZHAR MEER, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
4
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.57107/2023 FOR OFFENCE
P/US.306, 384, 506 OF IPC INITIATED BY THE Ist
RESPONDENT MARATHAHALLI POLICE STATION PENDING
BEFORE THE XXIX ADDL CMM, BENGALURU.
IN WP NO.19466 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SANDEEP NAGARANTHAL
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O MR. GOPINATH NAGARANTHAL,
R/A VILLA NO.24,
'VASWANI WHISPERING PALMS',
8, 2ND CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT,
NEAR SBR PALACE, MARATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 037.
2. MR. N. A. GOPINATH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O MR. N. A. NARASIMHALU,
R/AT NO.401, 4TH FLOOR,
'ADARSH MANOR', SHANKAR MUTT ROAD,
SHANKARPURAM, BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. JAYNA KOTARI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. AZHAR MEER, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION,
JAYANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY,
REPRESENTED BY HCGP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5
2. NAMRATA LOGISHETTY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
W/O MR. SANDEEP NAGARANTHAL,
D/O MR. LOGISHETTY SHRAVAN KUMAR,
R/AT NO.D-15, VIKRAMPURI,
OPP. APOLLO HOSPITAL,
SECUNDRABAD, TIRUMALAGIRI,
HYDERABAD - 500 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 10/7/2023,
SRI. MAHESH S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF IN
CRIME NO.234/2022 OF BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN P.S. ON
TH FILE OF 37TH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE COURT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
QUASH THE FIR AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME
NO.234/2022, DATED 04.08.2022, OF BASAVANAGUDI
WOMEN P.S. ON THE FILE OF 37TH ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, BENGALURU,
(OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 506, 498A, 504
OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND UNDER SECTION 3 AND 4
OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961) VIDE ANNEXURE-
A IN SO FAR AS PETITION CONCERN.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.05.2024 THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
6
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON: 28.05.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.06.2024
ORDER
Writ petition No.19466/2022 is filed by the
petitioner/accused No.1 and 3 for quashing the FIR in Crime
No.234/2022 registered by the Basavanagudi Women Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
504, 506 of the IPC, 1860 and for the offences punishable
under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,
(herein after referred as 'DP Act'), whereas, Criminal
Petition No.9216/2022 is filed by petitioners/accused No.2
to 6 and Criminal petition No.264/2024 filed by the
petitioner/accused No.1 for seeking quashing of FIR and
charge sheet in Crime No.201/2022 registered by
Marathahalli Police Station and charge sheet against
accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections
384, 306, 506 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860,
pending on the file of the XXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the arguments of Smt.Jayna Kotari,
learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Azhar Meer, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners in writ petition, Mr.Mahesh.S,
learned counsel for the petitioner in the connected matter
and Smt.Anitha Girish and Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned High
Court Government Pleaders for respondent No.1.
3. The case of the prosecution challenged in the
writ petition is that the respondent No.2/Namrata Logishetty
filed first information to the Basavanagudi Women Police
Station, which is registered in Crime No.234/2022 on
04.08.2022 alleging that she is married to the accused
No.1/Sandeep Nagaranthal on 03.01.2021, in Ramoji Film
City, Hyderabad. During the marriage discussion, the
accused persons have demanded money to arrange the
marriage ceremony at Ramoji Film City, Hyderabad and a
mini Cooper Car worth sum of Rs.55,00,000/-. In addition,
they demanded 200 Kgs of Silver and 4 Kgs gold articles.
On 19.11.2020, her father booked a car by paying the
amount and the car was transferred to Karnataka for
registration. The accused persons also demanded to arrange
rooms at 7 Star Hotel in Ramoji Film City. Her father spent
more than Rs.6 Crores towards three days wedding
celebrations i.e., from 1st January 2021 to 3rd January 2021.
On 07.01.2021, a mini Cooper Car was given to the accused
No.1. It was registered in the name of the accused No.1 and
at the instance of the accused; a joint account was also
opened in Bengaluru. After the marriage, the respondent
came to know that accused No.1 was drug addict. He
started to spend money and also used to abuse the
complainant both physically and mentally and used to come
home and take drugs till early morning 4.00 a.m. - 5.00
a.m. He used to assault her, when she questioned the same.
The parents of the accused No.1 i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3
also supported the accused No.1. Her father used to deposit
money in her account for expenditures, but the same was
utilised by accused No.1. The accused No.1 used to abuse
her in filthy language. The accused No.1 left the house in
the midnight. When the same was brought to the notice of
the accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e., his parents, they also
threatened to kill her and threw her from the house on
01.05.2021. Due to the unbearable physical and mental
torture at the hands of the accused persons, she has
suffered a lot and her parents took her to Telangana. There
were many instances wherein her neighbours have
intervened and protected her. Hence, prayed for taking
action. The police registered the FIR against the three
accused persons i.e., husband, mother-in-law and father-in-
law and after registering the FIR and during the
investigation, the accused No.2/mother-in-law committed
suicide on 30.08.2022. Therefore, accused Nos.1 and 3 have
challenged the FIR and prayed for quashing the FIR.
4. In the other two Criminal petitions filed by the
accused Nos.1 in the case in crime No.201/2022 registered
by Marathahalli Police Station, for the offences punishable
under Sections 384, 506, 306 R/w Section 34 of IPC against
the accused. The accused No.2/mother-in-law of the
complainant in crime No.234/2022 have committed suicide.
Therefore, the accused No.3 is father-in-law of the
complainant filed this complaint against the daughter-in-law
and in-law's of his son.
5. It is alleged by the N.A.Gopinath in his
complaint that his son married the accused No.1/Namrata
Logishetty in Ramoji Film City on 03.01.2021 and she
resided in her parents house and subsequent to the
marriage, the accused No.1/Namrata Logishetty and her
husband i.e., his son were resided separately in
Marathahalli, Balaji layout, in a villa, where the complainant
and his wife was staying Shankarapuram, Bengaluru. His
daughter-in-law was constantly visiting her parents house at
Hyderabad, and she was not interested in living with the
complainant. She was always going to the party and using
the designer clothes and she has left the home by taking
away the diamond and other ornaments on 25.05.2022. His
son/Sandeep Nagarathnal filed a missing complaint on
04.06.2022 and subsequently, they came to know that their
daughter-in-law filed complaint against them. His son also
filed a divorce petition against accused No.1/Namrata
Logishetty and one day, the accused No.6 messaged to the
complainant by demanding the wedding expenses and a
huge amount. He has threatened with dire consequences,
who said to be rowdysheeter engaged by the accused
persons Sri.R. G. Somashekhar Gowda. He threatened to
defame the family reputation and sent messages. After the
divorce notice, the accused person to defame the family of
the complainant humiliated and harassed them by
circulating the information to the electronic and print media.
There were several telecast being broadcasted in various
channels and news paper and a FIR was also registered
against the complainant, his son and wife, due to which his
wife was under depression. Therefore, his wife had talk with
her friends and relatives and informed about the false
allegation, mental torture and blackmail made by the
accused persons. On 30.08.2022, due to the publishing of
the articles in the public print media as well as telecasting
the case against them, his wife committed suicide in the
house. Hence, he has contended accused persons have
abetted the commission of suicide, therefore, prayed for
taking action. After receiving the complaint, the Marathahalli
police registered the FIR in Crime No.201/2022 for the
offences punishable under Sections 306, 384, 506 r/w
Section 34 of IPC.
6. During the course of the investigation, the
accused No.1 to 6 approached this Court for challenging the
FIR. This Court granted stay to the accused No.2 to 6.
Therefore, the police proceeded with investigation and filed
charge sheet against accused No.1/daughter-in-law,
whereas, in view of the stay granted by this Court and
investigation was stalled against the accused Nos.2 to 6. On
reading of both the FIR's. it discloses that it is nothing but a
case and counter case between the same parties.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners in 498A case i.e., accused No.1 and 3 husband
and father-in-law of the complainant/Namrata Logishetty
has contended there is no serious allegation against the
accused persons. The complainant herself left the
matrimonial home on 25.05.2022 by taking the ornaments.
A missing complaint was also filed by the accused
No.1/Sandeep Nagarathnal and later, they came to know
that she was in Hyderabad. The parents/accused Nos.2 and
3 were staying separately from the accused No.1/Sandeep
Nagarathnal. Though the complainant is not interested in
residing with the accused family, she was frequently visiting
her parents house and made false allegations against the
accused persons. Therefore, it is not a fit case for
investigation and to file the charge sheet. He has further
contended that due to the harassment made by the wife of
the accused No.1/Sandeep Nagarathnal and her family,
because of their statement the TV channels published the
case against the accused persons. There was a huge media
coverage stating that the accused No.1 was badly abused
and urinated on the head of the complainant and made false
allegations. Therefore, the image of the family of the
accused persons were damaged, due to which accused No.2
committed suicide on 30.08.2022. A case was registered
against the wife and her parents and others. Therefore, it is
not a fit case to investigate the matter and prayed for
quashing the FIR.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
Mahesh S. appeared and objected the petition contending
that the father of the complainant spent more than Rs.6
Crores towards the marriage expenditures, even 200 KGs
silver articles and 4 Kgs gold ornaments which was still
laying with the accused persons. The accused have
demanded a mini Cooper car, which was given to the
accused No.1/Sandeep Nagarathnal. Since, the complainant
do not have any ID proof at Bengaluru for the purpose of
registration, hence, the mini Cooper car was registered in
the name of the accused No.1/Sandeep Nagarathnal and
the police seized the mini cooper car. The accused person
filed application before the Magistrate and obtained the
interim custody of the mini cooper car, still the car is with
the accused persons. Thereby they have committed the
offence under Section 6 of the DP Act, 1961. There was
huge demand of dowry articles prior to the marriage they
received and after the marriage, there was physical and
mental abuse on the complainant. There is cognizable case
made out for investigating the matter and prayed for
dismissing the petition.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader/Anita
Girish appeared for the state in writ petition No.19466/2022
also objected the petition contending that there were huge
golden ornaments, diamond ornaments and silver articles
given to the accused persons, as per their demand, a car
also given, which was in custody of the accused persons.
There was continuous harassment on the complainant both
physically and mentally. The accused No.1/Sandeep
Nagarathnal urinated on the head of the complainant, which
was mentioned in the complaint. There is sufficient material
and ingredients made out in the complaint for cognizable
offence committed by the accused persons. The accused
abused the complainant physically and mentally, and thrown
out the complainant from the house in the midnight.
Therefore, prayed for dismissing the writ petition and
praying for police to investigate the matter.
10. As per the allegation made in the complaint by
the complainant/Namrata Logishetty as against the accused
No.1 to 3, reveals that there was a demand of dowry prior
to the marriage and the accused persons also demanded to
conduct the marriage ceremony in Ramoji Film City. The
parents of the complainant spent more than Rs.5 crores
towards the marriage expenditures. They arranged the
rooms for accused persons and their relatives in 7 star
hotel. There was demand of further 200 KGs of silver
articles, 4 KG gold ornaments, apart from mini cooper car,
which was given by the complainant father. Subsequently,
though the accused No.1 and the complainant resided in
Marathahalli, Balaji layout in a villa but the accused No.1/
Sandeep Nagarathnal always used to come late night and
used to have drug till late morning. When the same was
questioned, he used to abuse her in filthy language and
assault her. When the same was brought to the notice of his
parents they also supported their son and on 01.05.2021,
the accused No.1/Namratha Logishetty said to have left the
house in the midnight. Subsequently, she has went to the
house of accused Nos.2 and 3 and informed, but they also
supported their son and abused her in filthy language and
threw out the complainant in the midnight on 01.05.2021.
Subsequently, the complainant went back to her parents'
house at Telengana. It is seen from the complaint that
there is ingredients made out against the accused persons
for conducting the investigation by the police. During the
course of the argument, the learned senior counsel also not
seriously contested the petition for quashing the FIR and
submitted ready to go for investigation and trial.
11. Considering the ingredients on the fact of the
case, in my view, it is not a fit case for quashing the FIR.
When lot of materials and demand of dowry prior to the
marriage and demand of dowry after the marriage, a mini
cooper car demanded and obtained by the accused persons
and even after registering the FIR the police seized the mini
cooper car but the accused persons filed application and
obtained the interim custody and kept the mini cooper car in
their house. That itself is a offence punishable under Section
6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and as per the contention of
the complainant, huge golden ornaments, silver articles and
other properties were left with the accused persons that was
not yet recovered by the police and there is clear a demand
of dowry and receipt of dowry attracts Section 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, apart from Section 6 of DP Act.
There was harassment continuous by the accused persons
which attracts 498-A, 504 and 506 of IPC. Therefore, matter
required for investigation and therefore, the writ petition
filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
12. As regards to the two criminal petitions filed by
the accused Nos.1 to 6 in respect of Crime No.201/2022
regarding 306 of IPC, wherein the accused No.2 in the 498A
case has committed suicide on 30.08.2022 after viewing the
telecasting of the Dowry harassment case by the TV
channels and paper publication. The learned Senior counsel
appearing for the complainant has also produced the TV
news paper extracts, where the TV channels published the
story of the complaint made by the accused No.1 for the
offence under Section 498A of IPC. Then various channels
like TV9, published regarding marriage expenditures,
spending huge amount by the accused No.1/Namrata
Logishetty and her parents and subsequently, harassment of
dowry and humiliating on the head of the accused No.1 by
the son of the complainant and it is not in the dispute that
the television channels published the news items and the
same was viewed by the wife of the complainant i.e.,
mother-in-law of the accused No.1/Namrata Logishetty and
she has committed suicide by living a death note. Of course
the police have investigated and filed a formal charge sheet
against the accused No.1. Since, there is no stay granted by
this Court and learned counsel for the petitioner Mahesh S,
has contended that there is no material produced before the
Court to show the accused were abetted the deceased to
commit suicide in order to attract the provisions of Section
107 of IPC and there is no ingredients to investigate the
matter and the TV channel, CDR records, CD are not
produced before the Court. Therefore, it is contended that
there is no material evidence against the accused persons
for having abetted the deceased to commit suicide,
therefore, prayed for quashing the FIR against the other
accused and charge sheet against the accused No.1.
13. Smt. Jayna Kotari, learned Senior counsel
objected the petition contending that there is lot of
ingredients made out in the complaint. The false allegation
made by the complainant in the FIR. It was published by the
news channels, thereby the wife of the complainant
committed suicide and the matter is required for
investigation. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
contended merely because a criminal complaint has been
filed by the daughter-in-law, which was published in the
news articles, that itself is not a ground for registering the
FIR against the daughter-in-law for having committed
suicide by the mother in law. Therefore, prayed for quashing
the FIR. Both the counsels relied upon the various
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and judgment of
the co-ordinate bench of this Court in respect of quashing
the FIR and charge sheet for the offence punishable under
Section 306 of IPC.
15. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, which reveals of course it is not in dispute that the
accused No.1 filed a dowry case against the deceased, her
husband and father-in-law, which is registered by the
Basavangudi police for offence punishable under Sections
498-A, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. It is also not in dispute that the TV news
channels published the complaint and the abuses suffered
by the complainant in the matrimonial house which was
viewed by the accused persons especially accused No.2
mother-in-law and subsequently, she felt that it is insult to
her family and went in depression and committed suicide.
Whether the accused persons have abetted the deceased to
commit suicide will have to bring under Section 107 of IPC
which is required to be considered. Of course the copy of
the documents produced by the learned senior counsel
reveals the news items were published both TV channel and
print media. The police already filed charge sheet against
the accused No.1. Ofcourse the allegation against the
accused No.6 that he is said to have demanded some
money in favour of the accused No.1 and said to have sent
messages which is also produced before the Court. There is
a suicide note left by the deceased making allegations
against the accused persons. The learned senior counsel
also contended that the police were half way in the
investigation and they filed only preliminary charge sheet
against the accused No.1. The further investigation is still
pending, when they will file additional charge sheet under
Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, submitted to allow the
police to further investigate the matter.
16. Learned High Court Government Pleader-
Rashmi Patel also objected the petition and contended that
the ingredients made out in the complaint attracts Section
306 of IPC and 384 of IPC. The matter is required for
investigation.
17. Considering the fact and circumstances, it is
nothing but a case and counter case between the two
parties. One complaint filed by the daughter-in-law against
the husband and parents-in-law and another complaint for
306 of IPC filed by the father-in-law for the death of the
mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law and other in-
law's. Ofcourse, it is well settled by the Supreme Court if the
ingredients under Section 107 of IPC is not attracted, the
Court can exercise the power under Article 226 or 227 of
constitution r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the
criminal proceedings if it is committing abuse of process of
law. I gone through the judgment relied by both the
counsels and however, looking to the facts and
circumstances and in view of the NEEHARIKHA
INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA reported in 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 315
where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Court
cannot ordinarily interfere in the investigation when the
cognizable offence is made out and allow the police to
investigate the matter.
18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the view that the police has permit to
investigate the matter and file the final report against the
accused persons after thorough investigation. The disputed
facts are there and once the police have already filed a
charge sheet against the accused No.1 and they are kept
pending for the further investigation and it was stalled
because of the stay granted by this Court for further
investigation, the police is unable to secure the CD from the
television channels and print media and also record the
statement of the other witnesses. Such being the case, it is
not fit case for quashing the FIR or charge sheet against the
accused persons at this stage and however, the liberty to
challenge the same after filing the final report against the
accused persons 1 to 6 in future.
19. Considering the same, I pass the following
order.
ORDER
i. Writ petition No.19466/2022 filed by the
accused Nos.1 and 3 for quashing the FIR,
registered by the Women Police
Basavanagudi, in Crime No.234/2022 is
hereby dismissed.
ii. The police is permitted to investigate the
matter and file a final report.
iii. Criminal Petition No.264/2024 filed by
accused No.1 and Criminal Petition
for quashing the charge sheet and FIR in
respect of Crime No.201/2022, registered by
Marathahalli police, are hereby dismissed,
permitting the police to go for the further
investigation and file final report.
to approach the Court by filing a fresh
petition by challenging the charge sheet, if
any, filed against them.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AMA
CT:SK
