1 Reserved on : 26.06.2025 Pronounced on : 21.07.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9276 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI YASHAS CHANDRA S/O SRI SATHISH CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O NO. 1117, 3RD MAIN ’E’ BLOCK, 2ND STAGE RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 010. 2 . SRI SATHISH CHANDRA S/O LATE DR.S.VENKATARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O NO. 1117, 3RD MAIN ’E’ BLOCK, 2ND STAGE RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 010. 3 . SMT. GEETHA W/O SRI SATHISH CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O.NO.1117, 3RD MAIN ’E’ BLOCK, 2ND STAGE RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 010. R 2 4 . SMT. PADMAJA W/O LATE SRI DINESH M.C., AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O NO. 1545/B, IAYADA BEEDI KOTE CHANAPATANA CHANAPATANA – 562 160. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SMT.VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUBRAMANYANAGAR POLICE STATION MALLESWARAM SUB-DIVISION REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . SMT. XXXXXX W/O XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1; SRI KAPIL DIXIT, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 24.07.2024 IN SPL.C.C.NO.1493/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE ‘A’ ARISING OUT OF THE FIR DATED 06.06.2024 IN CRIME NO.125/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3(1)(r) AND (s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 AND SEC.4, 6, 8, 3 12 OF POCSO ACT, SEC.3, 4 OF DP ACT AND SEC.354(C), 376, 498-A, 506 AND 34 OF IPC AND SEC.66(E) OF IT ACT AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-II, BENGALURU AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE ‘A1’ PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT OF SPL.C.C.NO.1493/2024 TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE SAID OFFENCE. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 26.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CAV ORDER Petitioners/accused 1 to 4 are before this Court calling in question proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.1493 of 2024 pending before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-II, Bengaluru arising out of crime in Crime No.125 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Act’ for short), Sections 4, 6 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 66E of the Information CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA 4 Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 354C, 376, 498A, 506 and 34 of the IPC. 2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - The 2nd respondent is the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that the 1st petitioner and the complainant know each other from the days of their college. The friendship had developed between the two through common contacts. After such friendship, it is the averment in the complaint, that the complainant started to frequent the house of petitioners 1 to 3 sometimes threatening to commit suicide if the 1st petitioner did not marry her. Unable to bear the nuisance, it appears, the 2nd petitioner, father of the 1st petitioner registers a complaint on 23-10-2021 before the Subramanyanagar Police Station seeking the Authorities to take action. Based on the said complaint, the complainant was counselled and advised not to create any nuisance. On such advise an undertaking is submitted by the complainant before the said Police Station that she would not trouble the 1st petitioner and his family in future. Based on the said undertaking, the complaint so 5 registered was rendered a non-cognizable report in N.C.R.No.255 of 2021. 2.1. The parents of the 1st petitioner believed that the 1st petitioner and the complainant were not in touch with each other anymore. But, it appears the 1st petitioner and the complainant eloped to Hassan. On 12-01-2023 they get married and registers the said marriage on 13-01-2023 at Hassan. After the marriage, the 1st petitioner and the complainant began to live separately in a separate accommodation and it is the statement in the petition that petitioners 2 to 4 were unaware of the marriage and residing of the 1st petitioner separately. Immediately after the marriage, the relationship between the 1st petitioner and the complainant began to sore and ultimately floundered. The floundering of the relationship in their marriage leads the complainant to the jurisdictional police seeking to register the complaint against the petitioners alleging that the 1st petitioner has, at the time when the complainant was below 18 years, had sexual intercourse forcibly with the complainant before the marriage and after the marriage has indulged in offences of brutal sexual assault which becomes an 6 offence under Section 376 of the IPC and has been staking the complainant throughout and threatening the complainant that he would leak the intimate images or private videos of the complainant if she would not yield to the request of the 1st petitioner. 2.2. Against other petitioners, it is the allegation that they have hurled abuses against the complainant in a place of public view or a public place which is an offence under the Act. All these allegations, which form the complaint, become a crime in Crime No.125 of 2024. The Police conduct investigation and filed a charge sheet. Filing of the charge sheet results in the concerned Court registering Special C.C.No.1493 of 2024 for the afore-quoted offences of the Act, IPC, POCSO Act, Dowry Prohibition Act and the Information Technology Act. It is the registration of the special criminal case that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 3. Heard Sri K.N. Phanindra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State 7 Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Kapil Dixit, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that no prima facie case even, is made out against the petitioners. The petitioners have not committed any offence as is alleged against them in the charge sheet. It is only a result of shoddy investigation. The 1st petitioner and the complainant voluntarily got married and due to marital differences as a counterblast to the divorce proceedings instituted by the husband, the complainant has registered the crime. In the previous complaint or interactions with the Police Authorities there was no whisper about sexual assault or rape having been committed by the 1st petitioner upon the complainant throughout. The complainant has roped in offences under the POCSO Act and sexual acts including rape, of the offences which are said to have taken place on 4-08-2029, 4-09-2019 and 29-09-2019 during college days of the complainant. A reading of the complaint, the learned senior counsel would submit, shows no offence under the Act is alleged 8 against the petitioners. There are no ingredients of the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4.1. The 4th petitioner is a distant relative and has been without any rhyme or reason dragged into these proceedings. The learned senior counsel would submit that in the complaint and in the charge sheet, it is the case of the complainant that, she met the 1st petitioner through a male friend at her Pre-University College days at Jain College in the year 2018-19. However, the complainant has never studied in Jain College as she has studied in Kerala. Her marks sheet is indicative of the fact that she has passed out from the Kerala Board of Public Examinations. There is a delay in lodging the FIR which was not explained by the complainant. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant would vehemently refute each one of the submissions contending that the acts between the complainant and the 1st petitioner have taken place prior to the marriage, in fact, 5 years prior to the registration of the crime itself at the time when the complainant was still below 18 years of age. Insofar as 9 discrepancy with regard to marks sheet and other indicators alleged by the petitioners, the learned counsel would submit that these are matters which require trial as to whether the complainant has studied in Jain College or at Kerala. Above all, the learned counsel would submit that even today if the 1st petitioner takes back the complainant/wife into the family fold, she would withdraw all her complaints and settle the matter. 6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that all those efforts have already been done and nothing has yielded any fruits. Therefore, he would request this Court to answer the issue on its merits. 7. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B.N. Jagadeesha would also refute the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in contending that all the submissions that are made are a matter of trial in which the petitioners will have to come out clean. The hurling of abuses is clearly seen on whatsapp chats between the two and the assault on 10 the wife by the husband also is a matter of record. In that light, he would seek dismissal of the petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 9. Though the dates and link in the chain of events are not in dispute they would require reiteration. The 1st petitioner and the complainant are said to have befriended each other through common friends while the complainant was studying at Jain College and the friendship between the two is said to have blossomed into love. The love appears to have gone to the stage of obsession of the complainant over the 1st petitioner. Therefore, the complainant is said to have frequented her visit to the house of the petitioners. Being fed up with this, a complaint is registered by the 2nd petitioner/father of the 1st petitioner against the complainant on 23-02-2021.The complaint reads as follows: “23-10-2021 Bangalore. 11 To, Inspector, Subramanyanagar Police station, Rajajinagar, Bangalore - 10. Sir, Sub: Regarding Blackmail to my son Yashas Chandra S from XXXX (XXXX) Father of XXXXX XXXX. I Satishchandra N.V. (9902096703) residing at 1117/Mantikrupa 1st floor, 3rd main, E Block, want to register a complaint against XXXX who is friends with my son for last 3 years. Recently my son has come to know that she was cheating on him with her ex-boy friend Varun Katra K.G. Vansh katri, my son wants to cancel his relationship but she is blackmailing by coming to my house saying she will commit suicide by taking pills and poison and creating nuisance near my house, request you to please look into the matter and sent it out. XXXXX Regards XXXXX, Sathishchandra N.V XXXXX 9902096703. XXXXX 1117, Mantrikrupa 1st Floor XXXXX 3rd Main, E Block, XXXXX Rajajinagar, B'lore-560010” Pursuant to the complaint so registered, the complainant is said to have been summoned to the Police Station in terms of law and is said to have been advised. The complainant is said to have undertaken that she would not bother the 1st petitioner and his family. The undertaking given reads as follows: “From: 12 XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX To Police inspector, Subramanya Police station Subject; I won’t be bothering Yashas Chandra and his family. Respected sir, I xxxx D/o xxxx aged: 20 years, today I came to police station contacted police inspector they have shown NCR 255/2021 I see the complaint and to know consonsiously agree to the complaint given by satish Chandra and Yashas Chandra and hence fourth I won’t be bothering yashas and his family. Hence fourth I will responsible for my further mistakes done by me and I whole heartily ask sorry to Yashas Chandra and family for the thing that to has happened and I won’t be committing such an incidents to the future coming days. I will be responsible for my own life and no one will be responsible for that. Finally I conclude that I won’t be anywhere meeting him or having contact with him in future days, I am sorry for what I have done. I have received nothing from him nor he have take anything from him. I have consciously said the above words. Thanking you, xxxx.” On the said undertaking, comes a non-cognizable report on 25-10-2021 in NCR.255 of 2021. Thus, would come to an end the first episode of squabble between the two. 13 10. Time passes by and the love between the 1st petitioner and the complainant appears to have grown strong which the parents were unaware. Therefore, the 1st petitioner and the complainant elope and get married in Hassan and register their marriage again before the Registrar of Marriages at Hassan. Post the marriage, the complainant and the 1st petitioner began to reside separately in a rented accommodation. As time progressed, love also progressed between the two. However, the relationship between them completely flounders. It led the complainant seeking to register a complaint on 27-03-2024. On the same day, the Police are said to have summoned the 1st petitioner on the complaint and asked the couple to appear before the Vanitha Sahayavani for counselling. The counselling is said to have failed. Therefore, the two proceedings spring – one the registration of matrimonial case seeking annulment of marriage by the husband against the wife on 06-04-2024 and the complaint against the husband and family members by the wife on 03-06-2024. The complaint so registered against the 1st petitioner which has triggered registration of crime is as follows: “ರವೆ. 14 ಾ ಾ ಾಗಳ, ಸುಬಮಣನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆ, ೆಂಗಳರು. ರವಂದ, ೕಮ . Xxxx, ೋಂ ಯಶ ಚಂದ.ಎ, 21 ªÀµÀð Xxxxx xxxxx. &ಾನ'ೇ, (ಷಯ (ಷಯ (ಷಯ (ಷಯ: ನನ* ನನ* ನನ* ನನ* ಗಂಡ,ಾದ ಗಂಡ,ಾದ ಗಂಡ,ಾದ ಗಂಡ,ಾದ ಯಶ ಯಶ ಯಶ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಚಂದ ಚಂದ ಚಂದ....ಎ ಎ ಎ ಎ ಮತು/ ಮತು/ ಮತು/ ಮತು/ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸರ ಸದಸರ ಸದಸರ ಸದಸರ (ರುದ2 (ರುದ2 (ರುದ2 (ರುದ2 3ೕಡು /ರುವ 3ೕಡು /ರುವ 3ೕಡು /ರುವ 3ೕಡು /ರುವ ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು. **** 4ೕಲ6ಂಡ (7ಾಸದ8 ,ಾನು ನನ* ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ'ೊಂ9ೆ :ಾಸ:ಾ;ರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ. ಮೂಲತಃ >ಾಸನ ?@ೆ8, >ಾಸನ <ಾಲೂ8ಕು, ,ಾೇನಹBC ಾಮದ8, ಯಲಗುಂದ ಅಂEೆ ಪಷG Hಾ , ಉಪ ಪಂಗಡ:ಾದ ಲಂಾJ (ಬಂHಾ'ಾ) Hಾ ಯ8 ಜ3Lರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ, ,ಾನು ೆಂಗಳನ ೕ MಾN (Oಾಲಯದ8 PೌಢSಾ@ೆ >ಾಗೂ ಜಯನಗರದ8ರುವ HೈU ಾ@ೇ?ನ8 V.ಯು.L >ಾಗೂ 2,ೇ ಾ8W, 'ಾHಾ?ನಗರದ8ರುವ ೆ.ಎX.ಇ. ಾ@ೇ?ನ8 Z.Z.ಎ ([ಾಗದ8 :ಾಸಂಗ &ಾಡು /ರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ. ಈ;ದ]8 ,ಾನು MಾN (Oಾಲಯ PೌಢSಾ@ೆಯ8 :ಾಸಂಗ &ಾಡು /ರು:ಾಗ 10,ೇ ತರಗ ಯ ನನ* ಸಹPಾ^ ಕೃ W ಕೃ W ಕೃ W ಕೃ Wಾಬು ಾಬು ಾಬು ಾಬು ಎಂಬುವವ'ೊಂ9ೆ :ಾಸಂಗ &ಾಡು /ರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ. ,ಾನು 10,ೇ ತರಗ ಮು;L HೈU ಾ@ೇ?ನ8 (Oಾ[ಾಸ &ಾಡು /ರು:ಾಗ ಕೃ Wಾಬು ರವ'ೊಂ9ೆ ಆಾಗ [ೇabಾಗು /ರು:ಾಗ, ಕೃ Wಾಬುರವರು ಅವರ Mೆ*ೕcತ ಯಶ ಯಶ ಯಶ ಯಶಚಂದ ಚಂದ ಚಂದ ಚಂದ ಎಂಬುವವನನು* ನನ* ಮ,ೆಯ ಹ /ರ ಪಚಯ &ಾdೊaGದು], ಯಶಚಂದ ಎಂಬುವವರು 'ಾHಾ?ನಗರ 'ಇ' ಾ8W, 2,ೇ ಹಂತ, 3,ೇ ಮುeಯ ರMೆ/, ೆಂಗಳರು ಇ8 :ಾಸ:ಾ;ರು<ಾ/'ೆ. (Door No:- 1117) cೕ;ದ]8, ಸದ ಯಶಚಂದ ಎಂಬುವವರು ಬನಶಂಕಯ Z.ಎಂ.ಎU. L.n. BNM IT ಾ@ೇ?ನ8 Nದು] /ದ]ರು, ಸದಯವರು 'ಾHಾ?ನಗರ 3:ಾಸದ8 :ಾಸ:ಾ;ದು], ಅವರು ನನೆ £Àನ* Mೆ*ೕcತ,ಾzÀ ಕೃ W ಾಬು ನನ* fೈX ಸಂgೆಯನು* <ೆೆದುೊಂಡನು. ನಮh ಪಚಯ:ಾದ ಸಂದಭjದ8 ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರು 8197267605 ಸಂgೆಯನು*, 2020ರ ವಷjದ ªÀgÉUÉ §¼À¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ ತದವಂತರ 7899916707 ಸಂgೆಯನು* ಬಳಸು /ರು<ಾ/'ೆ. 15 ಸದಯವರ Mಾk ೕನದ8 ಡೂW-390 9kಚಕ :ಾಹನ(ದ]ಂದ ನಮh ಪಚಯದ ನಂತರದ8 ನನ*ನು* 'ಾHಾ?ನಗರ9ಂದ ಜಯನಗರೆ6 ತನ* 9kಚಕ :ಾಹನದ8 ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋಗುವlದು. ಬರುವlದು &ಾಡು /ದ]. ಈ ಸಮಯದ8 ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರು ನನೆ 3ನ*,ೆ*ೕ ,ಾನು ಮದು:ೆbಾಗು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು, 3ೕನು ನನೆ ತುಂಾ ಇಷG:ಾ;9]ೕಯ ಎಂದು >ೇಳ /ದ]ರು, ಆಗ ,ಾನು ನನ* ವಯಸುm ಇನೂ* 17 ವಷj:ಾ;ದು], ನನೆ ಇನೂ* ಮದು:ೆಯ ವಯMಾm;ಲ8. ನನೆ ಮದು:ೆ &ಾdೊಳCವlದು ಇಷG(ಲ8, ನನ* ಮದು:ೆಯ (Eಾರವ,ೆ*@ಾ8 ನಮh ಮ,ೆಯವರು ,ೋdೊಳC<ಾ/'ೆಂದು ,ಾನು >ೇBOೆನು. ನನ* &ಾ ೆ ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರು ೋಪೊಂಡು 3ೕನು ನನ*ನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾಗOೇ >ೋದ'ೆ ,ಾನು ಆತhಹ<ೆ &ಾdೊಳCವlOಾ; ನನೆ ೆದೆ >ಾಕು /ದ]ರು. ,ಾನು ಅವನ ೆದೆೆ >ೆದ ,ಾನು ಮದು:ೆಯ (Eಾರವ,ೆ*ಲ8 ಮುಂOೆ ,ೋnೋಣ:ೆಂದು ತnೆಯು<ಾ/ ಬರು /Oೆ]ನು. cೕ;ದ]8 ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರು ರHೆಯ 9ನಗಳ8 ೆ.ಎ-01-ಎo.?-4644, ಐ-20 ಾರನು* <ೆೆದುೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ನನ*ನು*, ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರ Mೆ*ೕcತ'ಾದ ,ೆಹರೂ, ಕೃ W, ಸಮq ರವರನು* ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋ; ೆಂಗಳನ ಎಂ.?.ರMೆ/, ಕಬrUPಾWj >ಾಗೂ ೆಂಗಳನ ಇ3*ತರ ಸsಳಗBೆ ನಮhನು* ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋಗು /ದ]ನು. cೕ;ದ]8 9,ಾಂಕ: 4-8-2019 ರಂದು Mೆ*ೕcತರ 9ನ(ದ] ಾರಣ ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರು ೆ.ಎ-01-ಎo.?. 4644, ಐ-20 ಾನ8 ತನ* Mೆ*ೕcತ'ಾದ ,ೆಹರೂ, ಕೃ W, ಸಮq ರವ'ೊಂ9ೆ ನನ* ಮ,ೆಯ ಹ /ರ ಬಂದು ನನ*ನು* ೆಂಗಳನ ಎಂ.?. 'ೋdನ8ರುವ ಒಂದು ಪuೆ ಾನ8 ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋದರು. ನನ*ನು* ಪuೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋದ ನಂತರ ಅವ'ೆಲ8ರೂ Zಯv ಕುdದು ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರು ನನೆ ಇದು 3ೕರು ಎಂದು fಟG fದೆ Zಯv ಕುdLದರು, ,ಾನು Zಯv ಕುdದ ನಂತರದ8 ನನೆ ಅwಾG; ಪxೆNಲ8ದ ಾರಣ ನನ*ನು* &ಾಗdಯ ಹ /ರ ಇರುವ ಸವನದುಗj ೆಟGೆ6 ಯಶಚಂದ, ,ೆಹರೂ, ಕೃ W, ಸಮq ರವರುಗಳ ನನ*ನು* ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋದರು. ,ಾನು ಅವರನು* ಎ8ೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋಗು /9]ೕರ ಎಂದು ನನೆ ಪxೆ ಬಂದ ಕೂಡ@ೇ ,ಾನು ಾನ8ರು:ಾಗ@ೇ ೇBOಾಗ, ಸದ ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರು ಈ 9ನ Mೆ*ೕcತರ 9ನ:ಾದ]ಂದ ,ಾ:ೆಲ8ರೂ ೆಟGದ 4ೕ@ೆ >ೋ; yೕzೋ <ೆೆದುೊ7ೆCೕಣ ಎಂದು >ೇBದ. ನಂತರದ8 ,ಾವl ೆಟGದ 4ೕ@ೆ >ೋOಾಗ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು ನನ*ನು* ಪ<ೇಕ:ಾ; ೆಟGದ 4ೕದ] ;ಡ-ಮರಗಳ Oೆೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋ; ನನ*ನು* ತZrೊಂಡು, ನನೆ ಮುತು/ೊಟುG, ನನೆ @ೈಂ;ಕ {|ೆ ಪEೋ9Lದ. ಆಗ ,ಾನು ಯಶಚಂದ ರವೆ ,ಾ3ನೂ* ಅPಾಪ/ ವಯಸ6ಳ ಎಂದು ,ಾನು AiÀıÀ¸ï ZÀAzÀæ gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ತBC ಓdಬಂOೆನು. ನಂತರದ8 ನನ*ನು* ನನ* ಮ,ೆಯ ಹ /ರ ZಟುG AiÀıÀ¸ïZÀAzÀæ PÉÆÃ¥À¢AzÀ ºÉÆgÀlĺÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ. 16 cೕ;ದ]8 ಯಶಚಂದರವರು ಪ 9ನ ನನ* fೈX ನಂ. Xxxxxx ೆ :ಾ•m ಅ€ 4Mೇ•, fೈX ಕ'ೆ &ಾಡು /ದ]ನು. ಇದೆ6 ,ಾನು ಪ {| ೊಡOೇ ಇದ] ಾರಣೆ6 ಯಶ ಚಂದ ರವರು ನನ* ಾ@ೇ?ನ ಬB ಬಂದು 3ೕನು ನನ* Hೊ<ೆ ಮದು:ೆೆ ಒV‚ೊಳCOೇ >ೋದ'ೆ 3ನ*ನು* MಾNL, 3ಮh ಮ,ೆಯವರ,ೆ*@ಾ8 MಾNL, ,ಾನೂ ಸಹ ಆತhಹ<ೆ &ಾdೊಳC<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು ನನೆ ಮತು/ ನನ* ಕುಟುಂಬೆ6 Pಾಣ ೆದೆ >ಾಕು /ದ] ಈ ೆದೆೆ ,ಾನು ಭಯ(ದು] ನನೆ ಯಶಚಂದ >ೇBದ >ಾೆ ನnೆದುೊಳCವlದು ZಟುG ೇ'ೆ OಾNಲ8ದ ಾರಣ ,ಾನು ಯಶಚಂದ >ೇBದ]ನು* &ಾdೊಳCಲು ಒV‚ೊಂnೆನು. cೕ;ದ]8 9,ಾಂಕ:04-09-2019 ರಂದು ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರು ನನೆ ೆದೆ >ಾ{ ಯಶ ಚಂದರವರ ಮ,ೆೆ ಬರೇೆಂದು >ೇBದನು. ಆಗ ,ಾನು ಇದೆ6 ನನ* ತಂOೆಯವರು ಒಪl‚ವl9ಲ8:ೆಂದು ,ಾನು ಎಷುG >ೇBದರೂ ೇಳOೆ 3ೕನು ಬರOೆ >ೋದ'ೆ 3ನ*ನು*, 3ನ* ತಂOೆಯವರನು* ೊಲು8<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ೇBದ ಮತು/ ಯಶಚಂದ ನನ* ಮ,ೆಯ8 ನನ* ತಂOೆ-<ಾN ನನ* ಅಕ6 ಎಲ8ರೂ ಇದ]'ೆ 3ೕನು ಾ ಎಂದು >ೇBದ ಆಗ ,ಾನೆ ಅನ&ಾಗj(ಲ8Oೆ, ಯಶಚಂದ Hೊ<ೆೆ >ೋOೆನು. ,ಾನು ಅವರ ಮ,ೆೆ >ೋ; ,ೋdOಾಗ ಯಶ¸ïಚಂದ ರವರು ಮ,ೆಯ8 bಾರೂ ಇರಲ8. ಆಗ ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರು ಬಲವಂತ:ಾ; ನನ* ಇಷGದ (ರುƒಧ ,ಾನು ಎwೆGೕ ೇಡ:ೆಂದು ಕJ…ರು >ಾ{ದರೂ ನನ* ಇEೆ†ಯ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ನನ* 4ೕ@ೆ ಅ<ಾEಾರ &ಾdದ, ನಂತರದ8 3ೕನು ಇನು* ಮುಂOೆ ನನ* ZಟುG ಎ8ಗೂ >ೋಗುವlದೆ6 ಆಗುವl9ಲ8, ,ಾನು >ೇBದ >ಾೆ 3ೕನು ೇಳೇಕು, ಇಲ89ದ]'ೆ ,ಾನು ಎಲ8ಗೂ 3ೕನು ವ‡Eಾ|ಂದು >ೇಳ<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ಾಗೂ ಈ (ಷಯ 3ಮh ಮ,ೆಯವೆ >ೇBದ'ೆ ನನ*ನು* ೊಲು8ವlOಾ; ನನೆ ಯಶಚಂದ Pಾಣ ೆದೆ >ಾ{ದ. ಘಟ,ೆ ನnೆದ &ಾರ,ೆಯ 9ನ ಅಂದ'ೆ 05-09-2019 ರಂದು ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರು ನನ* ಮ,ೆಯ ಬB ಬಂದು ಐ-‰X ಎಂಬ &ಾ<ೆಯನು* 3ೕd 3ೕನು ಇದನು* ನುಂಗು 3ೕನು ಗ‡jJbಾಗುವl9ಲ8:ೆಂದು >ೇB ನನೆ ಒ<ಾ/ಯಪŠವjಕ:ಾ; &ಾ<ೆ ನುಂ;Lದ. ಈ ಘಟ,ೆbಾದ ನಂತರ 9,ಾಂಕ: 29-09-2019 ರಂದು ,ಾನು ೆBೆ‹ ಾ@ೇ?ೆ >ೋಗುವ ಸಮಯದ8 ನನ* ಮ,ೆಯ ಬB ಬಂದು ನನ*ನು* ಒ<ಾ/ಯಪŠವjಕ:ಾ; ೆಂಗಳನ ಪಾಶನಗರದ8ರುವ ಔ'ಾ-ಇU ಎಂಬ @ಾrÓೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋOಾಗ ,ಾನು ಯಶ ಚಂದ3ೆ ,ಾ3ನೂ* ಅPಾ¥ÉÛ, ನನೆ ಇOೆಲ8ವŠ ಇಷG:ಾಗುವl9ಲ8 ಎಂದು >ೇBದರೂ ಸಹ ನನ* ಇEೆ•ಯ (ರುದ2 ಮ<ೊ/4h ಅ<ಾEಾರ &ಾdದ >ಾಗೂ ನ3*Eೆ•ೆ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ನನ* yೕzೋ, ನನ* gಾಸ; (dŽೕವನು* ಯಶಚಂದ ತನ* fೈXನ8 &ಾdೊಂಡು 3ೕನು ಇನು*ಮುಂOೆ ನ,ೊ*ಂ9ೆ @ೈಂ;ಕ ಕೃತೆ6 ('ೋ Lದ'ೆ 3ನ* (dŽೕವನು* ಎ@ಾ8 Mಾ&ಾ?ಕ Hಾಲ <ಾಣಗಳ8 ಎಲ8ಗೂ ತಲುಪlವಂ<ೆ ಹಂಚು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು ನನೆ >ೆದL ನನ* 4ೕ@ೆ ಅ<ಾEಾರ &ಾdದ. 17 cೕ;ದ]8 ಯಶಚಂದರವರು ಮ,ೆ ನಂ.21/07, 8,ೇ ಮುಖರMೆ/, 2,ೇ ಹಂತ, 'd' ಾ8W, gÁeÁf£ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-10 ರ8 ನನ* ಮತು/ ನನ* ಸಹPಾa ರವೆ 4ೕಘನ ರವೆ ಾdೆ ªÀģɪÀiÁr vÀ£Àß ¸ÉßûvÀgÁzÀ LOಾ]ಥj, 4ೕಘನ ರವರನು* ಉBLದು], ಸದ ಮ,ೆಯ8ಯೂ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ಇZÉÑೆ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ಅ<ಾEಾರ ನnೆLರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಸದ ಮ,ೆಯು ನನ* ಮತು/ ªÉÄÃWÀ£À ºÉ¸Àj£À°è PÀgÁjgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. cೕ;ದ]8 ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರು ಒಂದು 9ನ ನನ* ಮ,ೆಯ ಬB ಬಂದು 3ನೆ ೇಲೂರು- ಹ7ೇZೕಡು >ಾಗೂ >ಾಸನವನು* <ೋಸು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ೇB ನನ*ನು* >ಾಸನೆ6 ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋ; 9,ಾಂಕ:13-01-2023 ರಂದು ನನ* ಇEೆ†ಯ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ನನ*ನು* ಉಪ,ೋಂದ ಾ ಾಯವರ ಕ‘ೇಯ8 ,ೊಂOಾNತ (:ಾಹ:ಾದನು (?¸ÀÖç &ಾ'ೇ•). ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರು ನನ*ನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾದ ನಂತರದ8 ನನೆ 3ನ* ತಂOೆಯು 3ವೃತ/ ೆ.ಇ.Z ಇಂ?3ಯ'ಾ;ದು], 3ನ* ತಂOೆಯವೆ 3ೕ(ಬr'ೇ >ೆಣು… ಮಕ67ಾ;ರುವ ಾರಣ 3ನ* ತಂOೆಯ ಬB >ೆ’†ೆ ಹಣ ಮತು/ ಆL/Nರುತ/Oೆ ಎಂದwೆGೕ ,ಾನು 3ನ*ನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾ;ರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ ಎಂದು >ೇBರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ನಮh ಮದು:ೆbಾದ ನಂತರ ನನ*ನು* ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರು ಅವರ ಮ,ೆೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋದರು. ಆಗ ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರ ತಂOೆಯವ'ಾದ ಸ ೕ“ಚಂದ >ಾಗೂ <ಾNಯವ'ಾದ ;ೕ<ಾ ರವರು 3ೕನು {ೕಳ Hಾ ಯ8 ಹುaGದು], ,ಾವl 4ೕಲು Hಾ ೆ Mೇದು], 3ನ*ನು* ನಮh ಮ,ೆಯ8 ಇಸಲು Mಾಧ(ಲ8, 3ೕನು ತುಂಾ {ೕಳಮಟGದ ಪಷ” Hಾ bಾದ ಲಂಾJ Hಾ ಯ8 ಹುaGದು], 3ೕನು ನನ* MೊMೆbಾಗಲು Žೕಗಳಲ8 ಎಂದು ತುಂಬ ೆಟG ಶಬ]ಗBಂದ ಬಹಳ Hೋ'ಾ; ನನ*ನು* ೈದು, ಒnೆದು ನನ* 4ೕ@ೆ ಏಕಾಲದ8 ಹ@ೆ8 &ಾdರು<ಾ/'ೆ. ನನ*ನು* ಮ,ೆಯ8 ಇLೊಳCಲು ಒಪ‚ಲ8. ನಂತರದ8 ,ಾನು ಮತು/ ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರು ನನ* ತಂOೆಯ ಮ,ೆೆ ಬಂದು :ಾLಸು /Oೆ]ವl. ನ–hಬrರ ಮದು:ೆ ಇಷG(ಲ8ದ bಾಶಚಂದರವರ ತಂOೆ-<ಾN ರವರು ಅವರ ಮ,ೆೆ ನನ*ನು* Mೇಸಲ8. cೕ;ದ]8 ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರ ತಂOೆ ಸ ೕ“ಚಂದ >ಾಗೂ <ಾN ;ೕ<ಾ ರವರು ಪŠವj 3ಗ9ತ Žೕಜ,ೆŽಂ9ೆ ನನೆ ಕ'ೆ &ಾd 3ನೆ ಮತು/ ನ£Àß ಮಗನ 4ೕ@ೆ ದೃ—GOೋಷ(Oೆ. :ಾ&ಾEಾರದ ಪŽೕಗ:ಾ;Oೆ. cೕಾ; ನಮh ಕುಟುಂಬದ8 ಕಲಹ:ಾಗು /ದು], ಇದರ ಪ>ಾರ &ಾಡಲು 3ೕನು ನfhಂ9ೆ ರುಪ ೆ ಬರೇೆಂದು >ೇB ನನ*ನು* ಅವ'ೊಂ9ೆ 9,ಾಂಕ:29- 11-2023 ರ8 ನನ* ಗಂಡ ಯಶಚಂದ, ಅವರ <ಾN ;ೕ<ಾ, ಅಕ6 ಪದhಜ ರವ'ೊಂ9ೆ ನನ*ನು* ರುಪ ೆ ವಣj ಾನ8 ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋ; ನನ* ಇEೆ†ಯ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ನನ* ತ@ೆ ಕೂದಲನು* <ೆೆLದರು. ನಂತರದ8 Oೇವರ ದಶjನ &ಾdL 9,ಾಂಕ:30-11-2023ರಂದು ೆಂಗಳೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಮಡು ಬಂದು ಇನು* 5 9ನಗಳ ನಂತರ 3ನ*ನು* ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋಗು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ೇB, 18 3ನ* ಆ'ೋಗ ಉತ/ಮ:ಾಗಳ ಸ‚ಂದನ >ಾL‚ಟX, 'ಾHಾ?ನಗರ, 'ಾಮಮಂ9ರ ಹ /ರ nಾ॥ Vೕ >ಾಗೂ ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರ <ಾNಯ Mೆ*ೕc<ೆbಾದ ಪŠJjಮ ರವರು 15 9ನಗಳ ವ'ೆೆ Nexito 15mg ಈ ಔಷ ಮತು/ &ಾ<ೆಗಳನು* <ೆೆದುೊಳCೇೆಂದು >ೇB, ನನ*ನು* &ಾನLಕ:ಾ; ˜ನ*<ೆೆ ಒಳಪdಸಲು ಔಷ ಮತು/ ªÀiÁvÉæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ,ಾನು ಅವರುಗಳ &ಾತುಗಳನು* ನಂZ ಅವರು 3ೕdರುವ ಔಷ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁvÉæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Éë¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. EzÀjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ T£ÀßvÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ನನ* ತಂOೆಯ ಮ,ೆಯ ಬB ZಟುG >ೋದರು. ಆದ'ೆ ನನ* ಗಂಡ ಈ ಸಮಯದ8 ನನ* ತಂOೆಯ ಮ,ೆಯ8 ನನ* Hೊ<ೆೆ :ಾಸ(ದ] >ಾಗೂ ಅವರ <ಾNಯವರ ಮ,ೆಗೂ ಸಹ >ೋ; ಬರು /ದ]. cೕ;ದ]8 ಯಶಚಂದ ನಮh ತಂOೆಯ ಮ,ೆಯ8 ನ,ೊ*ಂ9ೆ ಸಂMಾರ &ಾಡು /ದ] ಮತು/ ನ,ೊ*ಂ9ೆ ಾಂಡ™ ಬಳL @ೈಂ;ಕ {|ಯನು* &ಾಡು /ದ]. ಸದ (ಷಯೆ6 ,ಾನು ಅdšಪdLದ]ೆ6 ಯಶಚಂದನು ಮಕ6ಳ ಸದೆ6 ೇಡ ಮುಂOೆ ,ೋnೋಣ ಎಂದು >ೇಳ /ದ] ಮತು/ ಾಂnೋ™ ಬಳL ನ,ೊ*ಂ9ೆ @ೈಂ;ಕ {| ನnೆಸು /ದ]. ,ಾನು ನನ* ಗಂಡ3ೆ 3ಮh ಮ,ೆೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋಗು ಎಂದು ೇBOಾಗ@ೆಲ8, 3ೕನು 3ನ* ತಂOೆNಂದ ಆL/ ಬ'ೆLೊಂಡು ಾ, ಆಗ &ಾತ ನನ* ತಂOೆ-<ಾN ಮತು/ ನನ* ಅಕ6ನವರು 3ನ*ನು* ಮ,ೆೆ MೇLೊಳC<ಾ/'ೆ. ಇಲ89ದ]'ೆ 3ನ*ನು* ಮ,ೆೆ MೇLೊಳCಾರOೆಂದು ಯಶ ಚಂದನು ತಂOೆ-<ಾN ಮತು/ <ಾNಯ ಅಕ6ನವರು >ೇBರುವlOಾ; ಯಶಚಂದನು >ೇಳ /ದ]ನು. ಯಶಚಂದನು ನನ* ತಂOೆಯ ಮ,ೆೆ ಕುdದ ಬಂದು 3ನ*ನು* MಾNL ,ಾನು, ನಮh Hಾ ಯ8 ೇ'ೆಯವ'ೊಂ9ೆ ಇನೂ* >ೆ’†ನ ವರದ› ೆ ಪnೆದು ಮದು:ೆbಾಗು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು ನನ*ನು* ಅ&ಾನ(ೕಯ<ೆNಂದ ತುಂಾ (ಕೃತ:ಾ; ನನ*ನು* (ವಸ/ೊBL Oೇಹದ ಎ@ಾ8 [ಾಗಗBೆ ರಕ/ ಬರುವ >ಾೆ >ೊnೆದು, ಾNಯ8 ರಕ/ ಬರುವ >ಾೆ >ೊnೆದು, Oೇಹದ ಎ@ಾ8 [ಾಗಗBಗೂ Lಗ'ೇa3ಂದ ಚು’†, ನನೆ ಭಯ‡ೕ ಹುaGಸು /ದ] >ಾಗೂ ಈ (ಷಯ >ೊರಗnೆ &ಾ<ಾdದ'ೆ ಾ3ಂದ ನನ*ನು* ಅಪœತ &ಾd ೊ8ಸು<ೆ/ೕ:ೆ ಎಂದು BLದ. &ಾರ,ೆಯ 9ನ ,ಾ,ೇ ನಮh ಮ,ೆಯ8|ೕ ಪಥಮ ’{<ೆmಯನು* &ಾdೊಂdರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ. ಆದ]ಂದ ,ಾನು ತಮh8 ೇBೊಳCವlOೇ,ೆಂದ'ೆ ,ಾನು ಅPಾಪ/ ವಯLmನ8Oಾ]ಗ, ಯಶಚಂದನು ನನ* ಇEೆ†ಯ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ನನ* ಇEೆ†ಯ (ರುದ2 ಅ<ಾEಾರ:ೆಸ;ದ >ಾಗೂ ಮದು:ೆಯ ಮುಂEೆಯೂ ಸಹ ನನ* ಇEೆ•ೆ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ಅ<ಾEಾರ:ೆಸ;ದ ಯಶಚಂದ >ಾಗೂ ನನ* ಮದು:ೆಯ ನಂತರದ8 ನನ*ನು* ಯಶಚಂದ ರವರು >ಾಗೂ ತಂOೆ ಸ ೕ“ ಚಂದ, <ಾN ;ೕ<ಾ >ಾಗೂ <ಾN ಅಕ6 ಪದhHಾರವರುಗಳ Mೇೊಂಡು ನನ*ನು* &ಾನLಕ:ಾ;, Oೈcಕ:ಾ; ಕುರುಕುಳವನು* 3ೕdದ]ಲ8Oೆ, ನನ* ?ೕವನವನು* >ಾಳ &ಾdರು<ಾ/'ೆ. ಆದ]ಂದ ಇವರುಗಳ (ರುದ2 19 ಾನೂನು ೕತ ಕ^ಣ ಕಮವನು* ೈೊಂಡು ನನೆ ಆ;ರುವ ಅ,ಾಯೆ6 ,ಾಯ ಒದ;Lೊಡೇಾ; ತಮh8 ಕಳಕBNಂದ (ನಂ LೊಳC<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ. ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ, ಇಂ ತಮh (•ೇಯ Xxxxx (xxxx)” Police conduct investigation. Immediately after registration of crime, the Magistrate records statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The statement of the complainant reads as follows: ““““9999:12.06.2024 ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು Mಾ›ೆ Mಾ›ೆ Mಾ›ೆ Mಾ›ೆ ,ಾbಾಲಯದ8 ,ಾbಾಲಯದ8 ,ಾbಾಲಯದ8 ,ಾbಾಲಯದ8 ಪ&ಾಣವಚನ ಪ&ಾಣವಚನ ಪ&ಾಣವಚನ ಪ&ಾಣವಚನ ೋ ಸ@ಾNತು ೋ ಸ@ಾNತು ೋ ಸ@ಾNತು ೋ ಸ@ಾNತು. -:ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ 164(5) ದಂಡ ದಂಡ ದಂಡ ದಂಡ ಪ{ಯ ಪ{ಯ ಪ{ಯ ಪ{ಯ ಸಂc<ೆಯd ಸಂc<ೆಯd ಸಂc<ೆಯd ಸಂc<ೆಯd Mಾ›ಯ Mಾ›ಯ Mಾ›ಯ Mಾ›ಯ >ೇBೆ >ೇBೆ >ೇBೆ >ೇBೆ :- Sೆžೕ—ತಳನು* (Eಾಸ@ಾ;, ಆೆಯು MಾŸ ವನು* ಸkಇEೆ•Nಂದ 3ೕಡಲು ಬಂ9ರುವlOಾ; >ಾಗೂ ತನೆ MಾŸ 3ೕಡಲು bಾರು ಒ<ಾ/ಯ &ಾdರುವl9ಲ8:ೆಂದು BLರು<ಾ/'ೆ. Mಾ› Mಾ› Mಾ› Mಾ› (Eಾರ ೆ (Eಾರ ೆ (Eಾರ ೆ (Eಾರ ೆ Pಾರಂಭ:ಾದ Pಾರಂಭ:ಾದ Pಾರಂಭ:ಾದ Pಾರಂಭ:ಾದ ಸಮಯ ಸಮಯ ಸಮಯ ಸಮಯ ಮ•ಾಹ* ಮ•ಾಹ* ಮ•ಾಹ* ಮ•ಾಹ* 5.15 ಗಂzೆ ಗಂzೆ ಗಂzೆ ಗಂzೆ. ,ಾನು ನನ* 10,ೇ ತರಗ ಯವ'ೆೆ (Oಾ[ಾಸವನು* MಾN (Oಾಲಯ PೌಢSಾ@ೆ 'ಾHಾ?ನಗರದ8 ಮು;Lದು], ಆ ಸಮಯದ8 ಕೃ W ಾಬು ಎನು*ವ ನನ* Mೆ*ೕcತ ಇದು], ನನ* >ಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಮ,ೆ ಸkಲ‚ ದೂರನ8 ಇದು]. 10 ,ೇ ತರಗ ಮು;ದ ನಂತರ ,ಾನು ಮತು/ ಕೃ W ಾಬು Mೆ*ೕcತ'ಾ; Lಗು /ದು], ಆ ಸಮಯದ8 ಕೃ W ಾಬು ರವರ ಯಶ ಚಂƒರ ಅವ,ೊಂ9ೆ ಬಂ9ದು] ನನ*ನು* &ಾತ,ಾdL >ಾೆ >ೋ;ರು<ಾ/'ೆ. ನನ* fೈX ಸಂgೆಯನು* ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು ಕೃ W ಾಬು ಈತನ ಹ /ರ <ೆೆದುೊಂdದು], ಆ ಸಮಯದ8 ,ಾನು HೈU ಾ@ೇ• ನ8 ಓದು /ದು] ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು Z ಎU ಎಂ ಐ a, ಬನಶಂಕಯ8 (Oಾ[ಾಸ &ಾಡು /ದು], ,ಾವl Mೆ*ೕcತ'ಾ;ದು] ನನ*ನು* ಾ@ೇ• ೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋ; ಮತು/ ಮ,ೆೆ :ಾಪಸು Zಡು /ದ]ನು. ಅOಾದ ನಂತರ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು ನನ*ನು* 3ನ*ನು* ಕಂಡ'ೆ ಇಷG ನನ*ನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾಗು ಎಂದು >ೇBರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಅದೆ6 ನನ* ತಂOೆ, <ಾN ಯವರು ಆ (Eಾರವನು* ,ೋdೊಳC<ಾ/'ೆ ಎಂದು >ೇBರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ. ಈಗ (Oಾ[ಾ ಸ &ಾಡೇೆಂದು >ೇBರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ. ಅದೆ6 ಆತನು 3ನ*ನು* ಕಂಡ'ೆ ತುಂಾ ಇಷG 3ೕನು ಇಲ8 ಎಂದ'ೆ ,ಾನು ಸತು/ >ೋಗು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ ಎಂದು >ೇBರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ,ಾನು ಅದೆ6 ಈಗ Mೆ*ೕcತ'ಾ;ದು], ಮುಂOೆ ,ೋdೊ7ೆCೕಣ ಎಂದು 20 >ೇBರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ. ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನ ಹ /ರ ಾರು ಇದು] ,ಾ:ೆಲ8ರೂ 4 ಜನ Mೆ*ೕcತದು], ಎಂ ? ರMೆ/ ಕnೆಗ7ೆ@ಾ8 ಓnಾಡು /Oೆ]ವl. 9.04.08.2019 ರಂದು Mೆ*ೕcತರ 9ನ ಇದು] ,ಾ:ೆಲ8ರೂ ಪZrೆ >ೋ;ರು<ೆ/ೕ:ೆ. ಆಗ ನನೆ 18 ವಷj ಆ;ದು] ,ಾನು ಜೂಸನು* ಆಡjv &ಾdದು], ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಮತು/ ಅವರ Mೆ*ೕcತರು ಮಧPಾನ ಆಡjv &ಾdರು<ಾ/'ೆ. ,ಾನು &ಾW zೈX ಆಡjv &ಾdದು] ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು >ೋ; ಮದPಾನ &ಾdLರು<ಾ/,ೆ. Mೆ*ೕcತರ 9ನ ಇ9]ದ]ಂದ ಎಲ8ರೂ yೕzೋ <ೆೆದುೊ7ೆCೕಣ ಎಂದು >ೇB ,ಾಗರ[ಾ( ಕnೆNಂದ nಾ–ೆ >ೋ;ರು<ೆ/ೕ:ೆ. ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು ,ಾ(ಬr'ೇ ೕzೋ <ೆೆದುೊ7ೆCೕಣ ಎಂದು ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು ನನೆ ಮುತು/ ೊಟುG ೇ'ೆ ೇ'ೆ ೕ ಗಳ8 ನನ*ನು* ಮುಟGಲು Pಾರಂಭ &ಾdದನು. ,ಾನು ಆತನನು* ದೂd Mೆ*ೕcತರ ಕnೆ >ೋOೆ. ಅOಾದ ನಂತರ ನನ*ನು* ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು ಮ,ೆೆ ZaGರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಅOಾದ ನಂತರ ,ಾನು ಾನ8 >ೋಗಲ8. 4zೋದ8 ಾ@ೇ• >ೋಗಲು Pಾರಂಭ &ಾdOೆ. ಅOಾದ ನಂತರ ನನ* ನಂಬv ೆ yೕU &ಾdದು] ,ಾನು <ೆೆದುೊಂdರುವl9ಲ8. ಒಂದು 9ನ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು ನನ* ಾ@ೇ• ಕnೆೆ ಬಂ9ರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು ನನ* ಕnೆ ಬಂದು 3ೕನು ಮದು:ೆbಾಗಲು ಒಪ‚9ದ]'ೆ 3ನ* ತಂOೆ <ಾNಯನು* MಾNL, 3ನ*ನು* MಾNL ,ಾನು ಸತು/>ೋಗು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ ಎಂದು ೆದLರು<ಾ/,ೆ. 9.04.09.2019 ರಂದು ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು ನನ*ನು* ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು ಅವರ ಮ,ೆೆ >ೋ;ರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಆಗ ಅ8 bಾರೂ ಇರಲ8. ,ಾನು ಎwೆGೕ ೇಡ ೇಡ ಎಂದರೂ ಕೂಡ ಬಲವಂತ:ಾ; ನನ* ಇಷG ದ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ನನ*ನು* ಉಪŽೕ;Lೊಂಡು ನನ* 4ೕ@ೆ ಬಲ<ಾ6ರ &ಾdರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಆಗ yೕzೋ ಮತು/ (ೕdŽೕಗಳನು* &ಾdರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಆಗ ಈಗ ಏನೂ &ಾಡ@ಾಗುವl9ಲ8 ನನ*,ೇ ಮದು:ೆbಾಗೇಕು. ನ,ೊ*ಂ9ೆ ಇರೇಕು ಎಂದು, ಇಲ8:ಾದ'ೆ yೕzೋ (ೕdŽೕಗಳನು* Mೆ*ೕcತೆ ಕಳcಸು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ೇBರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಸkಲ‚ 9ನ ಆದ ನಂತರ ,ಾನು ಯಶ ಚಂದರವರ <ಾNಯವರನು* [ೇa &ಾd ಅವನು &ಾdದ ಕೃತದ ಬೆ‹ BLರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ. ಅದೆ6 ಅವರ <ಾN (ಷಯ ಎಲೂ8 >ೇಳೇಡ. ,ಾನು ಮದು:ೆ &ಾdಸು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ೇBದರು. ಪಾ“ ನಗರದ8 ಇರುವ >ೋzೆX ಅವ'ಾಯU ಅ8ೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋ; ಾ8W 4ೕX &ಾd, ಅ8ಯೂ ಕೂಡ ನನ* ಇEೆ†ಯ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ಬಲವಂತ &ಾd ಅ<ಾEಾರ &ಾdರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಅOಾದ ನಂತರ :ಾರೆ6 ಒಂದು ಾbಾದರೂ ನನ*ನು* ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋ; Oೈcಕ:ಾ; ನನ*ನು* ಬಳLೊಳC /ದ]. ಅOಾದ ನಂತರ ,ಾನು ೆ ಎX ಇ ಾ@ೇ• ನ8 ಓದು /ದು] ನನ* Mೆ*ೕc<ೆ 4ೕಘ ಎನು*ವವಳ ಇದು], Mೆ*ೕcತ LOಾ]gïÜ ಎನು*ವವನು ಇದು], ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು 4ೕಘ ಎನು* ವವರ Hೊ<ೆ ಮ,ೆ &ಾdೊ ಎಂದು >ೇBರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ನನ* ಮತು/ 4ೕಘ ರವರ >ೆಸನ8 ಾdೆ ಕ'ಾರುಪತವನು* &ಾdLರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಅ8ಯೂ ಕೂಡ ಮದು:ೆbಾಗು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ೇB ನನ*ನು* ಬಲವಂತ:ಾ;, Oೈcಕ:ಾ; ಉಪŽೕ;Lೊಂಡು ಅ<ಾEಾರ &ಾdರು<ಾ/,ೆ. 9.12.01.2023 ರಂದು aV‚ೆ >ೋೋಣ ಎಂದು >ೇB ಹ7ೇೇಡು ಹ /ರ ನನ*ನು* ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋ; ನಂತರ >ಾಸU ೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋ; ಉಪ,ೋಂದ ಾ ಕEೇಯ8 ಸc &ಾd 21 ಮದು:ೆbಾಗ9ದ]'ೆ ನನ* ತಂOೆ <ಾNNಯವರನು* MಾNಸು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ ಎಂದು ಮತು/ (ೕdŽೕಗಳನು* Mಾ&ಾ?ಕ Hಾಲ<ಾಣಗಳ8 >ಾಕು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ ಎಂದು >ೆದL ಉಪ,ೋಂದ ಾ ಾಯವ ಕEೇಯ8 ಮದು:ೆbಾ;ರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಅOಾದ ನಂತರ ಅವನು ನನ*ನು* ಅವರ ತಂOೆ <ಾN ಮ,ೆೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋ;ರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಆಗ ಅವರ <ಾN ನನ*ನು* ಮ,ೆೆ Mೇಸ@ಾಗOೆ ,ಾನು ಲಂಾJ Hಾ ಯವಳ ಎಂದು >ೇB. ನಮhದು 4ೕಲ Hಾ 3ಮhದು {ೕಳHಾ ಎಂದು ೆಟG ೆಟG ಶಬ]ಗBಂದ ೈದು ನನ*ನು* ಮ,ೆೆ Mೇಸಲ8. ನಂತರ ,ಾನು ನನ* ತಂOೆ <ಾN ಯವರ ಮ,ೆೆ >ೋ;ರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ. ನನ* ತಂOೆ <ಾNಯವರ ಮ,ೆೆ >ೋ; ,ಾನು ೇdೊಂಡು ಅವರು ಒV‚ೊಂಡು ನನ*ನು* ಮ,ೆೆ MೇLರು<ಾ/'ೆ. ಯಶ ಚಂದ bಾವlOೇ ೆಲಸ &ಾdರಲ8. ನನ* ತಂOೆಯವ'ೇ ,ೋdೊಳC /ದ]ರು. ಒಂದು 9ನ ಆತನು ನನ*ನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾ;ರುವlದು ದುdšೋಸ6ರ ಎಂದು >ೇBರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ನಂತರ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತ3ೆ bಾ'ೋ &ಾಟ &ಾdLOಾ'ೆಂದು ನನ*ನು* ರುಪ ೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋ; ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನ <ಾN ಮತು/ ಅವರ ಅಕ6 ನನ* ಇEೆ†ಯ (ರುದ2:ಾ; ನನ* ತ@ೆ ಕೂದಲನು* <ೆೆL ಆಗ ನನ*ನು* MೊMೆ ಎಂದು ಒV‚ೊಳC<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ೇBದ]ರು. ನಂತರ ನನ*ನು* ಸ‚ಂದನ ಆಸ‚<ೆೆ ಕಳcL ನನೆ &ಾvÉæಗಳನು* ೊdLರು<ಾ/'ೆ. ,ಾನು ಒಂದು :ಾರಗಳ ಾಲ &ಾ<ೆಗಳನು* <ೆೆದುೊಂಡು ,ಾನು ಬೕ 3Oೆ]ಯನು* &ಾಡು /Oೆ]. ,ಾನು &ಾ<ೆಗಳನು* <ೆೆದುೊಳCವlದನು* ZaGದ]ೆ6 ಯಶ ಈತನು* ಒಂದು 9ನ ನನ*ನು* >ೊnೆ9ರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ನನ* ತಂOೆಯವರು ಒಡ:ೆಯನು* ಅದ ಬದ &ಾdL ನನೆ ಒಡ:ೆಗಳನು* ೊdLರು<ಾ/'ೆ. ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು ಸದ ಒಡ:ೆಗಳನು* ಅವರ <ಾNೆ ೊಡೇೆಂದು ಅವlಗಳನು* ೊdLರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ನಂತರ ನನ* ತಂOೆಯವೆ ಒಂದು ಮ,ೆNದು] ಅದನು* ಬ'ೆLೊಂಡು ಾ ಎಂದು ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಈತನು ನನೆ ಹ@ೆ8 &ಾd ೈ9ರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಆಗ ಸದ (Eಾರವನು* ಅವರ <ಾNೆ >ೇBOಾಗ ಅವರ <ಾNಯು 3ೕನು ಬ'ೆLೊಂಡು ಾ ಎಂದು ೈ9ರು<ಾ/'ೆ. ನಂತರ ನನೆ ಯಶ ಚಂದ ಮತು/ ಆತನ <ಾN Hಾ ,ೋd ಮದು:ೆbಾಗೇ{ತು/ ಎಂದು >ೇB ನನೆ ’ತcಂMೆ 3ೕdರು<ಾ/'ೆ. ನಂತರ ನನೆ >ೊnೆಯುವlದು, ೈಯುವlದನು* &ಾd ನಂತರದ8 ತನ* <ಾNಯ ಮ,ೆೆ ಓd>ೋ;ರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ಆದ]ಂದ ಅವರುಗಳ 4ೕ@ೆ ಾನೂ3ನ ಕಮ ೈೊಳCೇೆಂದು ೇBೊಳC<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ. Mಾ›ಯ (Eಾರ ೆ ಮುಾ/ಯ:ಾದ ಸಮಯ ಮ•ಾಹ* 5.45 ಗಂzೆ …. …. …. Sd/- (;ೕ“ ಚnß) 21 ,ೇ ಅ.ಮು.ಮ.ದಂ. ೆಂಗಳರು. (&ಾನ L.ಎಂ.ಎಂ. ೆಂಗಳರು ಇವರ (Sೇಷ ಅ ಸೂಚ,ೆ 9,ಾಂಕ:23-03-2018 ADM- 1/01/2018 ರ ಪಾರ ಸುಬಮಣ ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆೆ :ಾV/ೆ ಒಳಪಡುವ ಪಕರಣಗBೆ 22 ಸಂಬಂ Lದಂ<ೆ ಕಲಂ 164 ರ ಅdಯ8 >ೇBೆಗಳನು* ಈ ,ಾbಾಲಯವl ಪnೆದುೊಳCೇೆಂಬ ಆOೇಶದ 4ೕ'ೆೆ ಈ Mಾ›ಯನು* ಮc7ಾ ಮುಖ PೇOೆ ಸಂ: 15645 >ಾಗೂ ಅರŸಕ ಉಪ 3ೕŸ'ಾದ ನಂ93, ಸುಬಮಣ ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆ >ಾಜರುಪdLರು<ಾ/'ೆ. ದೃ¡ೕಕರಣ: Mಾ›ಯು >ೇBದ MಾŸ ವನು* ಯ¢ಾವ<ಾ/; Mಾ›ಯು >ೇBದಂ<ೆ Oಾಖಸ@ಾ;ರುತ/Oೆ >ಾಗೂ ಸದ MಾŸ ವl Mಾ›ಯು >ೇBದ ಪŠಣj MಾŸ :ಾ;ರುತ/Oೆ ಎಂದು ದೃ¡ೕಕಸ@ಾ;Oೆ.” This leads the police filing a charge sheet against the petitioners. The summary as obtaining in Column No.7 of the charge sheet reads as follows: “¸ÁQë-01 gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÁ¸À£À f¯Éè & vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ Mಾಾ4 >ೋಬB, ಯಲಗುಂದ ಅಂEೆ, ,ಾೇನ ಹBC <ಾಂಡದ ಪಷG Hಾ ಯ ಉಪ ಪಂಗಡ:ಾದ ಲಂಾJ ಜ,ಾಂಗೆ6 Mೇದ Mಾ›-02 & Mಾ›-03 ರವರ ದಂಪ ಗಳ {ಯ ಮಗ7ಾ;ದು], ಲಂಾJ ಜ,ಾಂಗೆ6 ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÁQë-04 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ಅವರ >ೆಂಡ ೕಮ .ಸ'ೋಜ ರವೆ ಮಕ6ಳ ಇಲ8Oೇ ಇದು]ದ]ಂದ Mಾ›-04 ರವರ >ೆಂಡ ೕಮ .ಸ'ೋಜ ರವರು Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ಅವರ ಮ,ೆೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಇOೇ ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ, 'ಾHಾ?ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹ9]ೆ Mೇದ ಅವರ 'ಾHಾ?ನಗರ, 2,ೇ MೆGೕ•, d ಾ8W, 1,ೇ Z ಮುಖರMೆ/,ನಂ.1756/ಎ ರ ಮ,ೆಯ8L ೊಂಡು ೕಷಕ'ಾ; Mಾ{ರು<ಾ/'ೆ. 2018-19,ೇ Mಾನ8 Mಾ›-01 ರವರ ಾ84• ಆ;ದ] Mಾ›-05 ರವರ ಕnೆNಂದ ಈ Oೋwಾ'ೋಪ ಾ ಪaGಯ ಅಂಕಣ-04 ರ8 ನಮೂ9Lರುವ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು Mಾ›-01 ರವೆ ಪಚಯ:ಾ; ವಯಸ6,ಾ;ದ] 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ತನ* PÉ.J.02-eÉ.PÀÆå-6864 ನಂಬನ ೆ.a.ಎಂ ಡೂW -390 ೈWನ8 ಕೂL ೊಂಡು Mಾ›-01 ರವರು :ಾಸಂಗ &ಾಡು ದ] ಜಯನಗರದ8ದ] HೈU ಾ@ೇ?ನ ಬB ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋ; Zಡುವlದು, ಮ<ೆ/ೕ ಾ@ೇ?3ಂದ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು ಬರುವlದನು* &ಾಡು<ಾ/ ಅPಾಪ/ AiÀiÁVzÀÝ ¸ÁQë-01 gÀªÀjUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ಇಷG ಆ;9]ೕbಾ. ,ಾನು 3ನ*ನು* ಇಷGಪಡು /ದು] ಮುಂOೆ ,ಾನು 3ನ*ನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾಗು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು ಪೕ &ಾdOಾಗ Mಾ›-01 ರವರು ,ಾ3ನು* ಅPಾ¥ÉÛbಾ;ದು] ನನ;ನೂ* 17ವಷj DVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì DV®è £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ EµÀÖ«®è ¸ÉßûvÀgÁVgÉÆÃtªÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¦æÃw¹ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀ®Ä M¦àPÉƼÀîzÉà ಇದ]'ೆ 23 ,ಾನು ಆತhಹ<ೆ &ಾdೊಳC<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು Eಾಕುವನು* ಆತನ ಕ /ೆ cdದುೊಂಡು ಕೂಯು]ೊಳC<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು Mಾ›-01 ರವೆ >ೆದL ಆತನ <ೋರು ೆರಳನು* Eಾಕು(3ಂದ ೊಯು] ೊಂnಾಗ Mಾ›-01 ರವರು ಭಯಪಟುG ಮದು:ೆ ಮುಂದೆ6 ,ೋnೋ ಾವಂದು >ೇB Vೕ ಸಲು ಓV‚ೊಂnಾಗ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ೆ.ಎ.01-ಎಂ?-4644 ನಂಬನ ಐ-20 ಾನ8 ಕೂLೊಂಡು Mಾ›-05, 06 07 ಮತು/ ಇತ'ೆ Mೆ*ೕcತ'ೊಂ9ೆ Eಾ•m ನ*ಲು, ಊಟ &ಾಡಲು ಎಂ.?.ರMೆ/. ಕಬrU PಾWj >ಾಗೂ ೆಂಗಳನ ಇ3*ತ'ೆ ಸsಳಗBೆ >ೋಗು /ದು]ದ]ಲ8Oೇ, 9,ಾಂಕ:04-08-2019 ರಂದು 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* Mಾ›- 05, 06. 07 ರವ'ೊಂ9ೆ ಕುಂಬಳಗೂಡು ೕ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹ9]ೆ Mೇದ ೆಂಗಳರು cಂಾಗದ eÁUÀPÉÌ PÀgÉದುೊಂಡು >ೋ; Mಾ›-05, 06, 07 ರವರು ಾನ8 ಕುBತುೊಂdOಾ]ಗ 1,ೇ ಆgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë-01 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV VqÀ ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À ¥ÉÆzÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV Mಾ›-01 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ತZrೊಂಡು ಮುತು/ೊಟುG @ೈಂ;ಕ {|ೆ ಪEೋ9Lರುವlದು ತ3gೆNಂದ ದೃಡಪaGರುತ/Oೆ. ನಂತರ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು 9,ಾಂಕ:04-09-2019 ರಂದು ಇOೇ ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ, ಸುಬಮಣನಗರ ೕ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹ9]ೆ Mೇದ 'ಾHಾ?ನಗರ, 2,ೇ MೆGೕ•, ಇ ಾ8W, 3,ೇ ಮುಖರMೆ/, ನಂ.1117 ರ 1,ೇ ಮಹdಯ8ರುವ ತನ* ಮ,ೆೆ Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋ; ತನ* :ಾಸದ ಮನದರಹ UɸïÖgÀÆAನ8 Mಾ›-01 ರವರ ಇಷGೆ6 (ರುದ2:ಾ; ಬಲವಂತ 9ಂದ @ೈಂ;ಕ ಸಂ[ೋಗ ನnೆL ಇನೂ* ಮುಂOೆ 3ೕನು ನನ*ನು* ZಟುG ಎ8ಗೂ >ೋಗುವlದೆ6 ಆಗುವl9ಲ8 ,ಾನು >ೇBದಂ<ೆ 3ೕನು ೇಳೇಕು ಇಲ89ದ]'ೆ ಎಲ8ಗೂ 3ೕನು ವ‡Eಾ ಎಂದು >ೇಳ<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ೆದLರುವlದಲ8Oೇ 9,ಾಂಕ:29-09-2019 ರಂದು 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋಪಯು ಅPಾ¥ÉÛbಾ;ದ] Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ಪಾಶನಗರ, nಾll 'ಾ• ಕು&ಾv ರMೆ/ಯ8ರುವ OgÁ E£ï JA§ @ಾ¤¥ ೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋ; ಸದ @ಾ¤¥ನ ರೂಂ ನಂಬv -301 ರ8 ಬಲವಂತ9ಂದ Mಾ›-01 ರವರ ಇಷGೆ6 (ರುದ2:ಾ; @ೈಂ;ಕ ಆ<ಾEಾರ:ೆಸ; Mಾ›-01 ರವರ SÁ¸ÀVà ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼ÀÄ ಮತು/ (dŽೕ ಗಳನು* 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು ತನ* ಐ-yೕU fೈX ¥sÉÆãï£À°è awæPÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁQë-01 gÀªÀjUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ E£ÀÆß ªÀÄÄAzÉ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄUÉ «gÉÆâü¹zÀgÉ gಾಸ;ೕ yೕzೋ ಗಳ ಮತು/ (dŽೕಗಳನು* ಎಲ8ಗೂ ತಲುಪlವಂ<ೆ Mಾ&ಾ?ಕ Hಾಲ<ಾಣಗಳ8 ಅ€@ೋ¤ &ಾಡುವlOಾ; >ೆದL Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ಪzÉà ¥ÀzÉà ¸ÀzÀj ¯ÁrÓUÉ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋ; @ೈಂ;ಕ ಸಂ[ೋಗ ನnೆLರು<ಾ/,ೆ. ನಂತರ Mಾ›-01 ರವರು ವಯಸ67ಾದ 4ೕ@ೆ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು 2 & 3,ೇ ಆ'ೋVತರು ಒಪl‚ವl9ಲ8:ೆಂದು Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾಗOೇ CAvÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÁAiÀÄÄÝPÉƼÀî®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQë-01 gÀªÀgÀÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ºÉzÀj¹ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¦æÃw¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ನaL ನನ*ನು* ಾನ8 ಮತು/ ೈWನ8 ಎ@ಾ8 ಕnೆ ಸು<ಾ/dL 24 §®ªÀAvÀ¢AzÀ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ @ೈಂ;ಕ ಸಂ[ೋಗ ನnೆL ಈಗ ಮದು:ೆbಾಗುವl9ಲ8:ೆಂದು >ೇಳ /9]ೕbಾ 3ೕನು ನನ*ನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾಗ9ದ]'ೆ ,ಾನು 3ಮh ಮ,ೆ ಮುಂOೆ ಆತhಹ<ೆ &ಾdೊಳC <ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ೇBOಾಗ 2,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು ಸುಬಮಣನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆಯ8 Mಾ›- 01 ರವರ (ರುದ2 ಕಂPೆ8ೕಂ• &ಾdOಾಗ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು Mಾ›-01 ರವೆ ಇನೂ* ಮುಂOೆ ಈ ೕ ಮೂಡುವl9ಲ8 PÀë«Ä¹ ಎಂದು ಬ'ೆದುೊಡುವಂ<ೆ >ೇB ˜ತ ಮೂಲಕ ಬ'ೆLೊಟುG ನಂತರ ಇOೇ ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ, 'ಾHಾ?ನಗರ, d ಾ8W, 2,ೇ ಹಂತ, 8,ೇ ಮುಖರMೆ/, ನಂ.2107 ರ ,ೆಲªÀÄಹdಯ ಮ£Éಯನು* ಾdೆೆ ಪnೆದುೊಂಡು ಸದ ಮ,ೆಯ8 2022,ೇ ಇಸ( ಜನವ ಂಗB3ಂದ 2022,ೇ ಇಸ( ಆಗG ಂಗBನವ'ೆೆ Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ೕ(ಂ¦ ಟೂೇದv jÃwಯ8 ಇLೊಂಡು Mಾ›-01 ರವೆ 3ನ* gಾಸ;ೕ yೕzೋಗಳ ಮತು/ (dŽೕಗಳನು* Mಾ&ಾ?ಕ Hಾಲ<ಾಣಗಳ8 ಆ€@ೋ¤ &ಾಡುವlOಾ; >ೆದL ಬಲವಂತ9ಂದ @ೈಂ;ಕ ಸಂ[ೋಗ ನnೆLರುವlದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ9ರುತ/Oೆ ಇOಾದ ನಂತರ Mಾ›-01 ರವರು 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು ಮದು:ೆbಾಗOೇ ಇOಾ]ಗ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯ (ರುದ2 ೕPÉÆìà ಾNOೆಯdಯ8 ಪಕರಣ Oಾಖಸಲು Lದ2<ೆ &ಾd ೊಳC /ರುವ (Eಾರವನ* Bದುೊಂಡು ಸದ ಪಕರಣ9ಂದ ತV‚LೊಳCವ ಉOೆ]ೕಶ9ಂದ ಾನೂನು ಪಾರ ,ೋಂಧ ಮc7ೆಯನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾ; (:ಾಹ (Eೆ†ೕದನ ಪnೆದುೊಳCವ Pಾ8U &ಾd 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು 2023,ೇ ಇಸ( ಜನವ ಂಗBನ8 Mಾ›-04 ರವರ ಮ,ೆಯ ಬB >ೋ; Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* >ಾಸನೆ6 ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋ; 9,ಾಂಕ:12-01-2023 ರಂದು OೇವMಾsನದ8 ಮದು:ೆ bಾ; ನಂತರ Mಾ›-02 & 03 ರವರ ಮ,ೆೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋ; Mಾ›- 02 & 03 ರವೆ Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* Eೆ,ಾ*; ,ೋdೊಳC<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು >ೇB 9,ಾಂಕ:13-01- 2023 gÀAzÀÄ >ಾಸನ ಸu ?ಸGv ಕ‘ೇಯ8 ಮದು:ೆಯನು* ,ೋಂಧ ೆ &ಾdL Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ೆಂಗಳೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು ಬಂದು 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು ತನ* ಮ,ೆೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋಗOೇ Mಾ›-04 ರವರ ಮ,ೆಯ8|ೕ ಇLೊಂಡು Mಾ›-01 ರವೆ ಸದೆ6 ಮಕ6ಳ ೇಡ ಎಂದು >ೇB ಾಂnೋ™ ಬಳL @ೈಂ;ಕ ಸಂ[ೋಗ ನnೆಸು /ದು]ದ]ಲ8Oೇ, Mಾ›-01 ರವರು ಪಷG Hಾ ಯ ಲಂಾJ ಜ,ಾಂಗೆ6 Mೇರುವ (Eಾರ ಮತು/ ಂಾNತ ಜ,ಾಂಗೆ6 Mೇರುವ 3ವೃತ/ ೆ.ಇ.Z ಇಂ?3ಯv ಆ;ರುವ Mಾ›-04 ರವೆ ಮಕ6ಳ ಇಲ8Oೇ ಇದ]ಂದ Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ತನ* ಮ,ೆಯ8Lೊಂಡು ೕಷಕ'ಾ; Mಾ{ರುವ (Eಾರ ೊ<ಾ/; Mಾ›-01 ರವೆ 3ಮh Mಾಕು ತಂOೆಯ ಬB >ೆ’†ೆ ಹಣ ಆL/ ಇOೆ ಎಂದwೆGೕ ,ಾನು 3ನ*ನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾ;ರು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆ 3ೕನು 3ನ* Mಾಕು ತಂOೆಯ ಕnೆNಂದ ಆL/ಯನು* ಬ'ೆLೊಂಡು ಬರುವಂ<ೆ ಓ<ಾ/ಯ &ಾಡು<ಾ/ Oೈcಕ:ಾ; ಮತು/ &ಾನLಕ:ಾ; {ರುಕುಳ 3ೕಡಲು Pಾರಂ‡LOಾಗ Mಾ›-04 ರವರು Mಾ›-01 ಮತು/ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯನು* 2023,ೇ ಇಸ( ಜು@ೈ ಂಗBನ8 ಅವರ ಮ,ೆೆ ಕಳcLೊzಾGಗ 2 & 3,ೇ ಆ'ೋVತರು Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ತಮh ಮ,ೆŽಳೆ MೇLೊಳCOೆ ಾ;ಲ ಬB|ೕ 25 ತnೆದು 38L Mಾ›-01 ರವೆ 3ೕನು {ೕಳ Hಾ ಯ8 ಹುaGದು], ,ಾವl 4ೕಲು Hಾ ೆ Mೇದು] 3ನ*ನು* ನಮh ಮ,ೆಯ8 ಇLೊಳCಲು Mಾದ(ಲ8, 3ೕನು ತುಂಾ {ೕಳಮಟGದ ಲಂಾJ Hಾ ಯ8 ಹುaGದು] 3ೕನು ನಮh MೊMೆbಾಗಲು Žೕಗಳಲ8 ಎಂದು ಅ:ಾಚ ಶಬ]ಗBಂದ ೈದು 3ಂ L ಅವ&ಾನ &ಾd :ಾPಾಸುm ಕಳcLರುವlದು ತ3gೆNಂದ ದೃಡಪaGರುತ/Oೆ. ತದನಂತರ Mಾ›-04 ರವರು Mಾ›-01 ಮತು/ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVೆ ಬಸ:ೇಶkರನಗರ, ಶಂಕರಮಠದ ಬB ಅವರ &ಾೕಕತkದ8ದ] ಮ,ೆಯನು* ZಟುGೊaGದು], ಸದ ಮ,ೆಯ8 Mಾ›-01 ಮತು/ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು :ಾಸ:ಾ;ರು:ಾೆ‹ 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVಯು 2 & 3,ೇ ಆ'ೋVತರ ಮ,ೆೆ >ೋ; ಬರು /ದು] ಎಲ8ರೂ Mಾ›-01 ರವೆ ಅವ&ಾನ &ಾಡೇೆಂಬ ಉOೆ]ೕಶ9ಂದ Pಾ8U &ಾd Mಾ›-01 ರವೆ 3ನೆ ದೃ—GOೋಷ(Oೆ ಪ>ಾರ &ಾdಸೇೆಂದು >ೇB 1, 2, 3 & 4,ೇ ಆ'ೋVತ'ೆಲ8ರೂ Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* 9,ಾಂಕ:29-11-2023 ರಂದು ರುಪ ೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋ; Mಾ›-01 ರವರ ಇಷGೆ6 (ರುದ2:ಾ; ಬಲವಂತ9ಂದ ತ@ೆಯ ಕೂದಲನು* <ೆೆL :ಾPಾಸುm ೆಂಗಳೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಸkಲ‚ 9ನಗಳ ನಂತರ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋಗುವlOಾ; >ೇB Mಾ›-04 ರವರ ಮ,ೆಯ8 ZಟುG >ೋದವರು ಆ'ೋVತರು Mಾ›-01 ರವರನು* ಅವರ ಮ,ೆೆ ಕ'ೆದುೊಂಡು >ೋಗOೇ ಇOಾ]ಗ Mಾ›-01 ರವರು 1,ೇ ಆ'ೋVೆ 3ಮh ಮ,ೆೆ ಕ'ೆದು ೊಂಡು >ೋಗುವಂ<ೆ ೇBOಾಗ@ೆ@ಾ8 3ೕನು 3ಮh ತಂOೆಯ ಕnೆNಂದ ಆL/ಯನು* ಬ'ೆLೊಂಡು ಾ ಆಗ &ಾತ ನಮh ತಂOೆ <ಾN 3ನ*ನು* ಮ,ೆೆ MೇLೊಳC<ಾ/'ೆ ಇಲ89ದ]'ೆ ,ಾನು >ೆ’†ನ ವರದ›Jಯನು* ಪnೆದು ೇ'ೆ ಹುಡು;ಯನು* ಮದು:ೆbಾಗು<ೆ/ೕ,ೆಂದು &ಾನLಕ:ಾ; {ರುಕುಳ 3ೕd ಪŠವj 3ಗ9ತ Žೕಜ,ೆಯಂ<ೆ Mಾ› 01 ರವರ ಕnೆNಂದ (:ಾಹ (Eೆ†ೕದನ ಪnೆಯಲು ೌಟುಂZಕ ,ಾbಾಲಯದ8 ಅ?j ಸ8Lರುವlದು ತ3gೆNಂದ ದೃಢಪaGರುತ/Oೆ.” After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences and commits the matter to the Court of Session, where the proceeding is registered as Spl.C.C.No.1493 of 2024. It is this that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. The protagonists in the crime are the husband of the complainant, the 1st petitioner, the mother-in-law and father-in- 26 law of the complainant and a distant relative of the 1st petitioner/husband who is said to have sat for settlement talks. OFFENCES UNDER THE ATROCITIES ACT - PETITIONERS 2 TO 4: 11. At the outset, I deem it appropriate to consider the allegations against petitioners 2 to 4 and then, consider the allegations against the 1st petitioner. The allegation against petitionrs 2 to 4 inter alia, are the ones punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Act. The said provisions read as follows: “3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.—(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— … … … (r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;” Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Act mandate that abuses with an intention to insult a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe must be hurled in a place of public view or a public place. The complaint and the summary of the charge sheet is 27 quoted hereinabove. Upon meticulous perusal of the complaint, the charge sheet and the submissions advanced at the bar, the Court discerns that the allegations against petitioners 2 to 4, are but vague imprications, unanchored infact, and barren of legal substratum necessary to sustain prosecution. The elements required to constitute offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act – particularly, the necessity that the offensive conduct occur in public view, with a specific intent to humiliate on caste lines. These are conspicuously absent. Even if the alleged utterances were taken on the face value, they do not pass the statutory threshold to invite criminal culpability. 12. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of HITESH VERMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND1 wherein the Apex Court holds as follows: “…. ….. …. “14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place in public view” had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported 1 (2020) 10 SCC 710 28 as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] . The Court had drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be contrary to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the application of this principle in para 15, below:“Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view.”] . The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28) “28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression “place within public view” with the expression “public place”. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government 29 or the municipality (or other local body) or gaonsabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.” (emphasis in original) 15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet. 16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject-matter of civil dispute between the parties as per Respondent 2 herself. Due to dispute, the appellant and others were not permitting Respondent 2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of property pending before the civil court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State of M.P. [Khuman Singh v. State of M.P., (2020) 18 SCC 763 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104], this Court held that in a case for applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was 30 committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. The Court held as under: “15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to “Khangar” Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable.” 18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out. 19. This Court in a judgment reported as Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra [Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 454: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 124] issued certain directions in respect of investigations required to be conducted under the Act. In a review filed by the Union against the said judgment, this Court in a judgment reported as Union of India v. State of Maharashtra [Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 686] reviewed the directions issued by this Court and held that if there is a false and unsubstantiated FIR, the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked. The Court 31 held as under: (Union of India case [Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 686], SCC p. 797, para 52) “52. There is no presumption that the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may misuse the provisions of law as a class and it is not resorted to by the members of the upper castes or the members of the elite class. For lodging a false report, it cannot be said that the caste of a person is the cause. It is due to the human failing and not due to the caste factor. Caste is not attributable to such an act. On the other hand, members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes due to backwardness hardly muster the courage to lodge even a first information report, much less, a false one. In case it is found to be false/unsubstantiated, it may be due to the faulty investigation or for other various reasons including human failings irrespective of caste factor. There may be certain cases which may be false that can be a ground for interference by the Court, but the law cannot be changed due to such misuse. In such a situation, it can be taken care of in proceeding under Section 482 CrPC.” 20. Later, while examining the constitutionality of the provisions of the amending Act (Central Act 27 of 2018), this Court in a judgment reported as Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India [Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 657] held that proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code. It was held as under: (SCC p. 751, para 12) “12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no argument to the contrary has been raised.” 21. In Gorige Pentaiah [Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P., (2008) 12 SCC 531 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 446] , one of 32 the arguments raised was non-disclosure of the caste of the accused but the facts were almost similar as there was civil dispute between parties pending and the allegation was that the accused has called abuses in the name of the caste of the victim. The High Court herein has misread the judgment of this Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale [Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 3 SCC 789 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 20] as it was not a case about the caste of the victim but the fact that the accused was belonging to upper caste was not mentioned in the FIR. The High Court of Bombay had quashed the proceedings for the reason that the caste of the accused was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is not made out. In an appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, this Court held that this will be the matter of investigation as to whether the accused either belongs to or does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High Court erred in law to dismiss the quashing petition relying upon later larger Bench judgment. 22. The appellant had sought quashing of the charge- sheet on the ground that the allegation does not make out an offence under the Act against the appellant merely because Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste since the property dispute was not on account of the fact that Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes between a vulnerable section of the society and a person of upper caste will not disclose any offence under the Act unless, the allegations are on account of the victim being a Scheduled Caste. Still further, the finding that the appellant was aware of the caste of the informant is wholly inconsequential as the knowledge does not bar any person to protect his rights by way of a procedure established by law. 23. This Court in a judgment reported as Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. [Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 612 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 818] held that there is no prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part. In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court is required to examine as to whether its intervention is required for prevention of 33 abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court held as under : (SCC p. 618, para 9) “9. Having regard to the settled legal position on external interference in investigation and the specific facts of this case, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice. There is no prohibition under law for quashing a charge-sheet in part. A person may be accused of several offences under different penal statutes, as in the instant case. He could be aggrieved of prosecution only on a particular charge or charges, on any ground available to him in law. Under Section 482, all that the High Court is required to examine is whether its intervention is required for implementing orders under the Criminal Procedure Code or for prevention of abuse of process, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. A charge-sheet filed at the dictate of somebody other than the police would amount to abuse of the process of law and hence the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 to the extent of the abuse. There is no requirement that the charge-sheet has to be quashed as a whole and not in part. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The supplementary report filed by the police, at the direction of the Commission, is quashed.” 24. In view of the above facts, we find that the charges against the appellant under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are not made out. Consequently, the charge-sheet to that extent is quashed. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.”” (Emphasis supplied) Therefore, the offences under the Act qua petitioners 2 to 4 are necessarily to be obliterated. 34 OFFENCES UNDER THE IPC - PETITIONERS 2 TO 4: 13. The other offences alleged are the ones punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is the case of the complainant that both the 1st petitioner and the complainant elope and get married in Hassan and began to live separately, without the parents being aware of the fact that they had married at all. What demand or otherwise is made by the husband right from 2019 till the date of registration of the complaint, there is no iota of offence or ingredients of the offence of demand of dowry and cruelty meted out on such demand against petitioners 2 to 4 who are lugged in alleging offences punishable under the Act. 14. The Apex Court has time and again cautioned against the indiscriminate roping in of distant relations or even the father-in-law and the mother-in-law in matrimonial disputes, unless clear, specific and cogent allegations exist. The present complaint is steeped in generalities and is bereft of factual support. It undoubtedly falls within the ambit of 35 cautionary jurisprudence by the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR2 has held as follows: “Issue involved 10. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the appellants and respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the appellant in-laws are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed? 11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498- AIPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as Section 498-AIPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. [Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472: (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 301] , has observed : (SCC pp. 478-79, para 14) “14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the Statement of 2 (2022)6 SCC 599 36 Objects and Reasons of Act 46 of 1983. The expression “cruelty” in Section 498-A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. [Explanation to Section 498-A.] It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualised. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.” 13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273: (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4) “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36) “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-AIPC are 37 filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The 38 allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741: (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21) “21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para 12) ‘12. … There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.’ 39 The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.” 16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6) “6. … The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that “all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy”. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not 40 appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution. 19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR Respondent 1 i.e. the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the learned Principal Judge, Purnea, to not harass the respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 1-4-2019, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11-12-2017. 20. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the appellant in-laws would simply result in an abuse of the process of law. 21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.” (Emphasis supplied) 41 15. Later, the Apex Court in the case of GHANSHYAM SONI v. STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI)3 holds as follows: “…. …. …. 10. A perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the complainant are that in the year 1999, the Appellant inflicted mental and physical cruelty upon her for bringing insufficient dowry. The Complainant refers to few instances of such atrocities, however the allegations are generic, and rather ambiguous. The allegations against the family members, who have been unfortunately roped in, is that they used to instigate the Appellant husband to harass the Complainant wife, and taunted the Complainant for not bringing enough dowry; however, there is no specific incident of harassment or any evidence to that effect. Similarly, the allegations against the five out of six sisters that they used to insult the Complainant and demanded dowry articles from her, and upon failure beat her up, but there is not even a cursory mention of the incident. An allegation has also been made against a tailor named Bhagwat that he being a friend of the Appellant instigated him against the Complainant, and was allegedly instrumental in blowing his greed. Such allegations are merely accusatory and contentious in nature, and do not elaborate a concrete picture of what may have transpired. For this reason alone, and that the evidence on record is clearly inconsistent with the accusations, the version of the Complainant seems implausible and unreliable. The following observation in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Home2, fits perfectly to the present scenario: “6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301 42 11. As regards the Appellant, the purportedly specific allegations levelled against him are also obscure in nature. Even if the allegations and the case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, apart from the bald allegations without any specifics of time, date or place, there is no incriminating material found by the prosecution or rather produced by the complainant to substantiate the ingredients of “cruelty” under section 498A IPC, as recently observed in the case of Jaydedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat3 and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh4. The Complainant has admittedly failed to produce any medical records or injury reports, x-ray reports, or any witnesses to substantiate her allegations. We cannot ignore the fact that the Complainant even withdrew her second Complaint dt. 06.12.1999 six days later on 12.12.1999. There is also no evidence to substantiate the purported demand for dowry allegedly made by the Appellant or his family and the investigative agencies in their own prudence have not added sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to the chargesheet. 12. In this respect, the Sessions Court has applied its judicial mind to the allegations in the FIR & the material on record, and has rightly discharged the Appellants of the offences under section 498A & 34 IPC. Notwithstanding the said observation by the Sessions Court that the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out, the discharge of the Appellant merely because the Complainant is a police officer is erroneous and reflects poorly on the judicial decision making, which must be strictly based on application of judicial principles to the merits of the case. On the other hand, the High Court vide the Impugned Order has traversed one step further and overtly emphasised that simply because the Complainant is a police officer, it cannot be assumed that she could not have been a victim of cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws. We agree with the sensitive approach adopted by the High Court in adjudicating the present case, however a judicial decision cannot be blurred to the actual facts and circumstances of a case. In this debate, it is only reasonable to re-iterate that the 43 Sessions Court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction and the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, must delve into the material on record to assess what the Complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. In the present case, such scrutiny of the allegations in the FIR and the material on record reveals that no prima facie is made out against the Appellant or his family. It is also borne from the record that the divorce decree of their marriage, has already been passed, and the same has never been challenged by the Complainant wife, and hence has attained finality. Upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and that the alleged incidents pertain to the year 1999 and since then the parties have moved on with their respective lives, it would be unjust and unfair if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court has considered the entire spectrum of law. Therefore, it would not become necessary to quote earlier judgments rendered on the issue. Finding no ingredients of offences under Section 498A of the IPC or under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against petitioners 2 to 4, further proceeding cannot be permitted to be continued against them. 16. What remains, is the offence under Section 506 of the IPC which punishes for criminal intimidation. Here again, there is 44 nothing that is found against petitioners 2 to 4 that would become ingredients of criminal intimidation, as obtaining under Section 503 of the IPC which can become an offence under Section 506 of the IPC. Therefore, none of the offences that have been attributed qua petitioners 2 to 4 are attributable against them. Wherefore, the offences so alleged against the petitioners 2 to 4 in its entirety, crumbles under scrutiny. The complainant herself acknowledges that the marital union of the 1st petitioner and herself was clandestined and unbeknownst to the family. Thus, the very predicate for implicating the parental figures, in dowry harassment is palpably missing. In such circumstances, permitting further proceedings would run foul of the aforequoted judgments of the Apex Court and would amount to fostering injustice. OFFENCES AGAINST PETITIONER NO.1 – HUSBAND: 17. As regards the 1st petitioner – the complainant’s husband, the allegations are grave and specific, invoking not only the offence of cruelty and voyeurism, but also serious offence under the POCSO 45 Act, including the offence of rape under Section 376 of the IPC. The assertion is that these acts occurred prior to the marriage and during a time when the complainant was allegedly a minor, which mandates a full fledged trial. With the limited contours of examination under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the truth of these assertions cannot be devined and must be unravelled in a full blown trial through crucible of evidence. 18. The allegations against the 1st petitioner/husband are the offences punishable under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, Sections 376, 498A, 506 and 354C of the IPC and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act. The offence under Section 354C which deals with voyeurism is completely met in the case at hand, as the allegation against the 1st petitioner is that, he has shot videos and taken pictures of the complainant at inappropriate times. This is the statement of the complainant also under Section 164 of the CrPC and findings in the charge sheet as well. Therefore, the offence under Section 354C of the IPC is completely met in the case at hand. 46 19. The other offence under Section 498A is, on the face of it, met in the case at hand, as there are allegations of cruelty, demand of dowry and the period has also been vividly narrated in the complaint. Therefore, there can be no question of quashment of the proceedings even under Section 498A of the IPC against the 1st petitioner. 20. The other offences are the offences under the POCSO Act and rape under Section 376 of the IPC. Whether these instances have happened or otherwise is a matter of trial, as the allegations of rape are not alleged post marriage, but all of which have been alleged of the acts done on particular dates when the two had not yet married. Therefore, it is for the 1st petitioner to come out clean. If the allegations on evidence would emerge under Section 376 of the IPC that those acts have taken place after the marriage, it would not become a crime. If they are before marriage, it is for the concerned Court to consider the same. 21. Prima facie, all the offences alleged against the 1st petitioner are required to be tried. Exercise of jurisdiction under 47 Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the 1st petitioner cannot even be imagined, as they are all in the realm of seriously disputed questions of fact. Therefore, finding no merit to quash the proceedings against the 1st petitioner, the petition qua the 1st petitioner must necessarily fail. But the petition in respect of petitioners 2 to 4 must succeed, as permitting further proceedings against them would result in miscarriage of justice and becoming an abuse of the process of law. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Criminal Petition insofar as petitioners 2 to 4 is concerned, is allowed. Special C.C.No.1493 of 2024 registered against petitioners 2 to 4 stands quashed. (ii) Criminal Petition qua 1st petitioner/husband is dismissed. (iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioners under Section 48 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against the 1st petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp CT:MJ