1 Reserved on : 20.02.2026 Pronounced on : 04.06.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.18828 OF 2025 (GM - RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.31907 OF 2025 (GM - RES) IN WRIT PETITION No.18828 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MR. VINAY KUMAR S., S/O SIDDAIAH B., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.18, 4TH MAIN ROAD 10TH CROSS, BEHIND KEB OFFICE ALANAHALLI, MYSURU – 570 028. (NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY CENTRAL PRISON, BENGALURU) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W., SRI KARIAPPA N. A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA R Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka 2 BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANAGRAHARA BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001. 3 . MR. LINGARAJU L., S/O LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.1067, 16TH CROSS CHANDRA LAYOUT, I STAGE BENGALURU – 560 070. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI MANU B. P., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 164/2025 OF CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY AS PER ANNEXURE-A FIR AND ITS FURTHER PROCEEDINGS FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 80, 85, 352 AND 3(5) OF BNS, WHICH IS ON THE FILE OF 46TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY AS PER ANNX-B, FURTHER PROCEEDING AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERN. 3 IN WRIT PETITION No.31907 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SIDDAIAH B., S/O LATE BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO.18, 4TH MAIN 10TH CROSS, ALANAHALLI BADAVANE MYSURU – 570 028. 2 . PREMA W/O SIDDAIAH B., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.18, 4TH MAIN 10TH CROSS, ALANAHALLI BADAVANE MYSURU – 570 028. 3 . SANJAY KUMAR S., S/O SIDDAIAH B., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.18, 4TH MAIN 10TH CROSS, ALANAHALLI BADAVANE MYSURU – 570 028. 4 . NANJUNDAIAH R., LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT 411, 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS NEAR SHANKARNAG BUS KAMALANAGAR, MYSURU CITY – 560 079. 5 . ARUN KUMAR N., S/O NANJUNDAIAH R., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT 411, 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS NEAR SHANKARNAG BUS 4 KAMALANAGAR, MYSURU CITY – 560 079. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W., SRI KARIAPPA N. A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY. REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . MR. LINGARAJU L., S/O LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO-1067, 16TH CROSS CHANDRA LAYOUT, I STAGE BENGALURU – 560 070. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI MANU B. P., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN C.C.NO.21651/2025 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE VI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 80, 85, 352 READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF BNS INCLUDING THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE OF PROCESS DATED 26-6-2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-B1 AND B2 WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF FIR IN CRIME NO.164/2025 OF CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, AS PER ANNEXURE A AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW. 5 THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER These two petitions are preferred by all the accused in C.C. No. 21651 of 2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 80, 85, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS. Writ Petition No.18828 of 2025 is preferred by the husband/accused No.1 and the companion petition Writ Petition No.31907 of 2025 is preferred by accused Nos. 2 to 6 . It is therefore, they are taken up together and considered by this common order. 2. Heard Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners along with Sri Kariappa N.A., Sri B. N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for State and Sri Manu B P, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in both the petitions. 6 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: 3.1. Before entering upon the marrow of the controversy, it becomes apposite to notice, in brief, the inter se relationship between the parties to the lis. The deceased was the daughter of the 3rd respondent/de-facto complainant. Accused No.1 was her husband; accused Nos.2 and 3, her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively; accused No.4, her brother-in-law; and accused Nos.5 and 6, distant relatives of accused Nos.1 to 4. The matrimonial alliance between accused No.1 and the daughter of the complainant was solemnized on 10-11-2024. Barely days after the sacred knot was tied, accused No.1 departed to the United States on 23-11-2024 in pursuit of his avocation, while the bride remained in India, awaiting the commencement of conjugal companionship. Nearly three months thereafter, on 05-02-2025, the daughter of the complainant journeyed to the United States to join her husband. Yet, what ought to have blossomed into the serene companionship of matrimony is alleged to have withered into discord and estrangement. Within scarcely two months of her arrival in the United States, the daughter returned to her parental 7 home in Bengaluru on 19-04-2025, carrying with her allegations of cruelty at the hands of her husband. Four days thereafter, on 23-04-2025, accused Nos.2 to 6 are stated to have visited the residence of the complainant with the professed object of bringing about reconciliation between the spouses. 3.2. The events that unfolded thereafter took a tragic and irreversible turn. On 24-04-2025, a day after the visit of accused Nos.2 to 6, the daughter of the complainant is alleged to have authored a death note and thereafter extinguished her own life. The sorrowing father, shattered by the untimely demise of his daughter, lodged a complaint, which came to be registered as Crime No.164 of 2025 for the offences afore-noted. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the jurisdictional police undertook investigation and ultimately laid a charge sheet against all the accused. The learned jurisdictional Court, upon perusal of the material placed before it, took cognizance and registered the impugned C.C. It is this initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings that has driven the petitioners to the portals of this Court, assailing the registration of C.C. No.21651 of 2025 and the continuance of trial against them. 8 4.1. The learned senior counsel, Sri Hashmath Pasha, appearing for the petitioners, would vehemently contend that there is no allegation in the complaint or in the charge sheet, which can become the ingredients of Sections 80 and 85 of the BNS/304B and 498A of the earlier regime of IPC. The learned senior counsel submits that there was no demand or acceptance of dowry, either at the time of marriage or before the marriage. There is neither cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased. Therefore, the said offences cannot be made out. Marital discord between the husband and the wife and the resultant death of the wife cannot become the ingredients under Sections 80 or 85 of the BNS, unless the demand of dowry is attached to it. The FIR does not include the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act at all. Therefore, the crime or filing of the charge sheet cannot be sustained. 4.2. The learned senior counsel would lay emphasis on the fact that accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the members of the family. Accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 are the brother-in-law and distant relatives who only went to the house of the de-facto complaint to bring 9 about reconciliation between the husband and the wife and were only mute spectators for what has happened therein. He would further contend that there is no live link or proximate cause for the death of the daughter of the complainant. The death note does not implicate any of the accused persons. The learned senior counsel would also contend that just prior to the fateful day, father is said to have rebuked her daughter and alleged that she was characterless, therefore, the commission of suicide by the daughter happens and no blame can be laid against the present accused. Therefore, all these factors must be taken note of and the crime against the husband and the in-laws must be obliterated. 5. During the subsistence of the trial, it transpires that the de-facto complainant and the family members enter into a settlement with the accused and seek to place it before this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings on account of settlement. Since the offence is the one punishable under Section 80 of the BNS/304B of the IPC – dowry death and the death having happened within 5 months of marriage, this Court refused closure of the proceedings on acceptance of the settlement. Therefore, the matter 10 was heard on its merit. The respondents would leave the decision to the Court, as they have accepted the terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B N Jagadeesha would vehemently oppose closure of the proceedings by way of recording of the settlement. It is his submission that the conversations between the deceased with other people would clearly project the cruelty meted out by the husband against the deceased. The proximate cause to the death is when the character of the daughter of the complainant was questioned on 23-04-2025 by accused Nos.2 to 6. The next day, the death has happened after writing a death note. The death note was clear that the husband had put a surveillance on the wife in the United States as to whom she would meet, whom she would talk to and on the basis of those material the deceased is alleged to have had illicit relationship with unknown persons and therefore when her character was questioned, it was the proximate reason for her death. Insofar as the allegation that the father also has instigated the death of the daughter, during the trial if the father has to be drawn as an 11 accused, the prosecution will do so. That would not mean that the allegations against the present petitioners should be obliterated. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial and this Court should not entertain a petition in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 7. The learned senior counsel would join issue in contending that the arrest of accused No.1 was illegal and contrary to several judgments of the Apex Court, since grounds of arrest was not furnished to accused no.1. Apart from the said submission, the learned senior counsel would submit that there was no cruelty or harassment meted out on the deceased soon before her death for it to become the ingredients of Section 304B/80 of the BNS .He would again lay emphasize on the fact that accused nos.5 and 6 are not even relatives by blood, marriage or adoption, they are drawn into the web of proceedings without any rhyme or reason. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 12 9. The aforesaid facts, being matters borne out by the record, do not require prolix reiteration, save and except the skeletal narration necessary for adjudication. The marriage between accused No.1 and the daughter of the complainant was solemnized on 10-11-2024. Accused No.1, who was residing in the United States, returned thereto, shortly after the marriage, while the wife joined him nearly three months later, on 05-02-2025. It is in that distant land, far removed from the protective embrace of her parental home, that the first fissures in the marital bond are alleged to have surfaced. What began as incompatibility is stated to have gradually ripened into incessant discord, with quarrels erupting on a near day-to-day basis between the husband and wife. Unable, as alleged, to withstand the cruelty meted out to her, the deceased returned to Bengaluru on 19-04-2025 and sought refuge in the home of her parents. 10. Four days thereafter, accused Nos.2 to 6 are said to have descended upon the residence of the complainant on 23-04-2025. What ostensibly commenced as an attempt at reconciliation is 13 alleged to have degenerated into a bitter confrontation. Questions were posed to the deceased as to why she had abandoned the matrimonial home and returned to India. Tempers flared; harsh words were exchanged. It is alleged that accused Nos.2 to 6 departed from the complainant’s residence at about 4.00 p.m., leaving in their wake an atmosphere surcharged with humiliation, anguish and emotional devastation. The record would further reveal that even the complainant-father, overwhelmed by frustration at his daughter’s abrupt return after marriage, is alleged to have rebuked her. The cumulative weight of these circumstances is stated to have driven the deceased into the abyss of despair, culminating in the tragic act of suicide on the very next day, i.e., on 24-04-2025. Before embracing death, the deceased is said to have penned a death note - a document which assumes profound significance in the adjudication of the present proceedings. It reads as follows: “Hi Sorry pappa mummy nan inda nimge problem but nijja heltini nan aur fix adre saku illa nan life nemdhi idre saku annod ithu bitre yav affair illa Howdu was talking to many frnds as I was alone. 14 Aura kelidre its ok sleep beda adige yen madthiya antha yella heli aur mane aur athra nan madthailla anthane. Nan yenu kelilla anthare Ega nodu aur name karlilla antha nu problem. Q2 I agree nan maduve admele Swalpa dina mathra Contact Madhe adre adake reason aur helid mathu. (1) No emotional got married for dad (2) Ninu bere aun jothe hogthiya if you are in US antha Yesto Sari illa marthu text madana may not be the way I think antha text madidhe. Nand problem idhe antha alli hogi aur nam frnds phone keli helthare andmele ilindane yak we will stay in 2 rooms andidu yake nan land ago munche ne seprate room ithidu. I Cried and went to him but aur nimge aur ammange yella heli baisudru. Mathe horde bidtara I am low atha mathe yella jagala. Adeke nana nan frnds jothe athu kardu madhe. Q2 Onde little finger saha touch madilla Aur amma cook together andre asthe hodre nayi thara nodi hogu andru So nanu nimge cooling time bere aur idre ista agallha antha sumne adhe. Ega yella sullu heli jothege affair anthare. Nan yest yella think madidhini nan life bagge andre Aure nan ista illa adake aur nan mele baro hage mathe nan jothe bere aur parents jothe bere heli nand tappu andru. Nimge gothu food topics yest sullu helidru antha. Q3 Aur olleour agine irbeku antha nannge mental torture kottu nane divorce keli antha madidu. Nan muka saha nodala. Kali sink kode nodi mathadodu. Nan alli topic alle aur keli solve madhi adre auru months together yella marthmele 15 bandu parents athra helthare. If he needs to get this fixed nan jothe mathadbeku allva. Pappa nange yav affair illa. Frnds mathe mathu aste. Nange yav relationship mele ase illa. Yare bandru nang beda I need peace aste Olle frnds idare not in Q3 terms of money or affair just nan helid kelskothare. Nan atu kardidu nan life ge ast think madidu nan lifege ond dina preethi illa adre bari kopa. Key kelidake beggarge yesiyo thara yesdi hogodu. Literaly nan floor inda pick madkonde Yavaglu busy busy busy andre nan yen madli. Q4 Aurag Avre divoce thagoloke ista ilde adeke hege torture madha aura so that I take divorce Illa nane hella, illa munde family sariyogatha yella thara. Nang bekididu affection adana aurne direct agi keldhe Madhuve hudgi kelod aur husband time and company aur amma yella force madi nanna horgade karkond hogu anbeku aur ammge force madidake nan room share madthare. Nan jothe take your pic andur aur amman athra selfie anthare. Yest dina nim athara heli samadhana madkolli heli. Adake nan frnds athara yella helkothaidhu aste hortu affair alla. Q4 Infact sometimes aur mid night hogodu yavaglo mid night barod nodi aur ex.girlfrnd Andra hudgi ista idhu nanna madhuve agidake heg madthaidare ankondhe pain iruthe allva antha sumne adhe. Aure helidru aur amma nimalli idbedu manege barbeda andidru antha. Adike he dropped off marrying her. 16 Nand aurige engagement admele kelde nan mele kopana yak phone message illa antha aur helidru for holidays thumba kelsa antha anda don’t worry nan yenidru ansadre helithini antha. So Q4 Anniversary yella wish madi swalpa busy adre about passport visa ticket antha. Avaga aure 2 days once message madidre nan hagu egu madhe. Pappa nand adige topic alli yenu tapilla. Nanagi nane sorry I will change heli anthanu kelidini Nand ond mistake was talking on phone with frnds and crying S…… alvala yede frnds jothe math adidini. Because I didn’t have that emotional safety, affection or he was not even seeing my face. Q5 Nijja mane bittu hogthini adre affair illa pappa Nang madhuve admelle yella baya adakke mistake baya dabbi pack madi late agbiduthe anno baya, yar yen anthare anno baya aur bandre nan hall alli illa andre baithare anno baya Yesto sari washroom control madkondu amele hogidini Q5 Madhuve hu andmele nan bari over think madi aur different agi irod rindha yella tension bittu bari aur mathe nan married life thought aste. Nan savige nane karna.” 17 Upon the tragic demise of the deceased, the complainant-father approached the jurisdictional police, leading to the registration of Crime No.164 of 2025 for the aforesaid offences. Since the genesis of the present proceedings lies in the untimely death of the young bride, the death note authored by her, and the complaint lodged thereafter, it becomes necessary to advert to the complaint in some detail. It reads as follows: “ರವೆ, ೕ ಇೆಕ ಚಂಾ ೇಔ, ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ ೕ !ಾ"ೆ ಇಂದ, ಂಗ$ಾಜು ಎ' S/o ಂಗಪ)(ೇ) ವಯಸು 59 ನಂಬ 1067, 16 /ಾ ಚಂದ ೇಔ, 0ದಲೇ WÀಟ ೆಂಗಳರು 560070 Mob: 9620620531 3ಷಯ: ನನ5 ಮಗ7ಾದ 8ೌಮ:ಳ ವಯಸು 34 8ಾ3ೆ /ಾರಣ$ಾದ ಗಂಡ 3ನ= >ಾವ ?ದ@ಯ: ಅBೆC Dೇಮ ಮತುC ಅವರ ಎರಡೇ ಮಗ ಸಂಜ= ಮತುC ನಂಜುಂಡಪ) ಮತುC ಅವರ ಮಗ ಅರುF ರವರ 3ರುದ@ ದೂರು HೕಲIಂಡ 3ಷಯ/ೆI ಸಂಬಂJ?ದಂBೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮL M NOಸುವPೇೆಂದ$ೆ ಾನು ಈ HೕಲIಂಡ 37ಾಸದ M ಾನು, ನನ5 QೆಂಡN Qಾಗೂ ಇಬRರು QೆಣುSಮಕI7ೆಂTೆ SÁಯಂ UಾಸUಾVರುBೆCೕೆ ನನ5 0ದಲ ಮಗOೆ ಸು>ಾರು 8 ವಷXಗಳ Yಂೆ 3UಾಹUಾVದು@ ಅವರ 18 ಾಂಪತ: ಸುಖUಾVರುತCೆ YೕVರುUಾಗ ನUೆಂಬ Nಂಗಳ\ 2024ರಂದು ನನ5 ಎರಡೇ ಮಗOೆ Hೖಸೂನ DಲನಹO^ _Uಾ?`ಾದ 3ನ= ಎಂಬುವೆ 3Uಾಹ >ಾa/ೊbರುBೆCೕೆ vÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ಮದುUೆ ಆದ ಒಂೇ Uಾರದ M Hೕೆ NO?ದ 3ನ= ರವರು ನನ5 ಮಗ7ಾದ 8ೌಮ:ಳನು5 ಇ Meೕ fಟು ಅHಕ/ೆI QೋVರುBಾC$ೆ ನಂತರ ಸು>ಾರು 2 Nಂಗಳ\ ಕ7ೆದ ನಂತರ ನನ5 ಮಗಳನು5 ಅHಕ/ೆI ಕ$ೆ?/ೊಂaರುBಾC$ೆ ನನ5 ಮಗಳ\ ಅHಕ/ೆI Qೋದ ನಂತರ ಅವ7ೆಂTೆ ಸ`ಾದ ವತXೆಯನು5 >ಾಡೆ ಪNTನ ನನ5 ಮೃತ ಮಗ7ೆಂTೆ `ಾವPೇ ಸ/ಾರಣ3ಲMTದ@ರೂ ಅನಗತ:UಾV ಜಗಳ Bೆೆದು ಪNTನ >ಾನ?ಕ Qಾಗೂ ೈYಕ Yಂ8ೆ _ೕಡುNCದ@ೆಂದು ನನ5 ಮಗಳ\ ಬದುhಾ@ಗ iೕ_ನ ಮೂಲಕ NO?ರುBಾC7ೆ. ಆzÁUÀÆå ಾವPಗಳ\ ಮ`ಾXTೆ ಅಂj ನನ5 ಮಗOೆ Qೊಂಾk/ೆ >ಾa/ೊಂಡು Qೋಗು ಎಂದು ಸಲQೆ _ೕaರುBೆCೕೆ ನಂತರ Hೕೆ NO?ದ 3ನ= ಅವರ zÀÄವðvÀೆ lNlೕದು@ ನನ5 ಮಗ7ೆಂTೆ `ಾವPೇ ೈYಕ ಸಂಪಕXವನು5 ಇಟು/ೊಂaರುವPTಲM Qಾಗೂ ಪN Tವಸ _ೕನು ೇ$ೆಯವ$ೊಂTೆ ಅೈNಕ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಇಟು/ೊಂaT@ೕಯ ಎಂದು QೇO ಪNTನ >ಾನ?ಕ Qಾಗು ೈYಕ hರುಕುಳ /ೊಡುNCದ@ೆಂದು ನನ5 ಮಗಳ\ ಬದುhದ@ ಸಮಯದ M ನನೆ NO?ದಳ\ ಈ 3nಾರವ£ÀÄß ನoನ ಮಗಳ\ ಅವರ ಅBೆC ಮತುC >ಾವ_ೆ NO?ಾಗ ಅವರು ಸಹ ಮಗನ ಕುªÀÄäQÌ_ಂದ _ೕನು ೇ$ೆಯವ$ೊಂTೆ ಅೈNಕ ಸಂಬಂಧ ElÄÖPÉÆAr¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ Yೕ`ಾO? ಅವರು ಸಹ ನನ5 ಮಗOೆ >ಾನ?ಕUಾV Yಂ8ೆಯನು5 _ೕaರುBಾC$ೆ Qಾಗೂ _ನ5ಂತವರು 8ಾಯೇಕು ಎಂದು ºÁVಂಾೆ Qೇಳ\NCದ@ರು ಎಂದು ನನ5 ಮಗಳ\ NO?ರುBಾC7ೆ. ಇಾದ ನಂತರ ನನ5 ಮಗಳ\ 3ನ=ರವರ >ಾನ?ಕ Qಾಗೂ ೈYಕ Yಂ8ೆಯನು5 Bಾಳಾರೆ Tಾಂಕ 19. 4. 2025 ರಂದು Uಾಪ ನಮL ಮೆೆ ಬಂTದು@ ನಂತರ Tಾಂಕ 23.4. 2025 ರಂದು ಏ/ಾಏh Hೕೆ NO?ದ ?ದ@ಪ) Dೇಮ ಅವರ hಯ ಮಗ Qಾಗೂ ನಂಜುಂಡಪ) ಮತುC ನಂಜುಂಡಪ) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ನಂಜುಂಡqಪನ ಮಗ ಮrಾ:ಹ5 3:00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ಸಮಯದ M ನಮL ಮೆೆ ಬಂದು ನನ5 ಮಗ7ೆಂTೆ sೋ$ಾV ಜಗಳ >ಾa ಅUಾಚ: ಶಬ@ಗOಂದ _ಂT?ರುBಾC$ೆ Qಾಗೂ ಮುಂದುವ$ೆದು _lLಂಾV ನಮL ಕುಟುಂಬ Qಾಗೂ ನನ5 ಮಗನ jೕವನ Qಾ7ಾVೆ Qಾಗೂ _ೕನು ನuೆBೆೆಟವಳ\ ೇ$ೆಯವ$ೊಂTೆ ಅಕಮ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಇಟು/ೊಂaT@ೕಯ _ನ5ಂತಹವರು ಬದುhರುವPದhIಂತ 8ಾಯುವPೇ Hೕಲು Qಾಗೂ _ನ5ನು5 ನನ5 ಮೆೆ 8ೇ?/ೊಳ\^ವPTಲM _ೕನು ಸತC$ೆ ನಮೆ ೆಮLT ಎಂದು _ಂT?ರುBಾC$ೆ ಆ ಸಮಯದ M ನನ5 ಮಗಳ\ ನನ5ೇನು ತv)ಲM _ಮL ಮಗ_ೆ ೈಂVಕ jೕವನ ನuೆಸುವ 8ಾಮಥ:X3ಲM ಅೊಂದು ತಪ)ನು5 ಮುxy/ೊಳ\^ವ ಸಲುUಾV ನನ5 Hೕೆ ಈ ಅೈNಕ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಎಂಬ ಸುಳ\^ 3ಷಯವನು5 ಸೃz?ರುBಾC$ೆ ಈ ಒಂದು Hೕೆ QೇOದ ಘಟೆ |ಂದ ನನ5 ಮಗಳ\ >ಾನ?ಕUಾV ತುಂಾ ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು ರೂlೆ QೋV ಆತLಹBೆ: >ಾa/ೊಂaರುBಾC7ೆ. ಈ Hೕೆ NO?ದ ಆ$ೋvಗಳ ಉೆ@ೕಶಪ~ವXಕ ಪnೋದೆ Dೇರ"ೆ ಮತುC >ಾನ?ಕ Qಾಗೂ ೈYಕ Yಂ8ೆ|ಂದ ನನ5 ಮಗಳ\ ಆತLಹBೆ: >ಾa/ೊಂaರುBಾC7ೆ Qಾಗೂ ನನ5 ಮಗಳ 8ಾ3ೆ 19 Hೕೆ QೇOದ ವ:hCಗಳ\ ೇರ /ಾರಣಕತX$ಾVರುBಾC$ೆ ಆದ@ಂದ ಅವರ Hೕೆ ಕ•ಣ /ಾನೂನು ಕಮ ಜರುVಸೇ/ೆಂದು PÉý/ೊಳ\^BೆCೕೆ. ಸY/- ಇಂN ತಮL 3ƒಾ„?” The complaint, in essence, narrates allegations of sustained mental and physical cruelty at the hands of accused No.1, coupled with accusations touching upon the chastity and character of the deceased. It is further alleged that when the deceased disclosed these acts of cruelty to her in-laws, rather than receiving solace or support, she was subjected to humiliation and derision, and was allegedly told that “persons like her ought not to live.” The complaint also recounts the visit of accused Nos.2 to 6 to the complainant’s residence on 23-04-2025, where the deceased is alleged to have been publicly humiliated, accused of illicit relationships, and told that her very existence had ruined the life of accused No.1. According to the complainant, these acts of humiliation and mental cruelty became the immediate precipitating factors that drove the deceased to take the extreme step of ending her life. 20 11. A careful perusal of the complaint would reveal that the gravamen of the allegations against accused No.1 pertains to physical and mental cruelty, allegedly inflicted upon the deceased during their stay in the United States. The complainant himself admits that, despite such allegations, he had advised his daughter to reconcile and continue the matrimonial relationship, evidently in deference to societal expectations and familial honour. The complaint further alludes to allegations concerning the absence of physical intimacy between accused No.1 and the deceased, and to accusations levelled by accused No.1 imputing illicit relationships to the deceased. It is also alleged that accused Nos.2 to 6 visited the complainant’s residence and subjected the deceased to verbal abuse and humiliation, accusing her of destroying the life of accused No.1. These allegations form the fulcrum upon which the prosecution rests. 12. The investigation undertaken by the jurisdictional police, coupled with the statements recorded from various witnesses, 21 culminated in the filing of a detailed charge sheet against the petitioners. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows: “17 /ೇ?ನ ಸಂ†ಪC, 8ಾ$ಾಂಶ ಈ ೋ‡ಾ$ೋಪ"ಾ ಪbಯ M ನಮೂT?ರುವ 8ಾ†-1 v`ಾXದುಾರ$ಾದ ˆೕ ಂಗ$ಾಜು ಎ'. fo Tವಂಗತ ಂಗಪ), 59 ವಷX ರವರು ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ, ಚಂದೇಔ ೕ !ಾ"ಾ Uಾ:vCಯ ಚಂದೇಔ 0ದಲೇ ಘಟ, 16ೇ ಅಡ‰ರ8ೆC, ನಂ. 1067 ರ ಸ„ಂತ ಮೆಯ M ಕುಟುಂಬೊಂTೆ Uಾಸ>ಾa/ೊಂaರುBಾC$ೆ. ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ಆತLಹBೆ: >ಾa/ೊಂaರುವ ಮೃBೆ 8ೌಮ:, 33 ವಷX ರವರು 8ಾ†-1 ರವರ ಎರಡೇ ಮಗ7ಾVರುBಾC$ೆ. Qಾಗೂ ಎ-1 ಆ$ೋv 3ಜಯo ಕು>ಾ ಎ. ರವರ ಪN5`ಾVರುBಾC$ೆ. 8ಾ† ರವರ ಹುಟೂರು Hೖಸೂರು jೆM,, b. ನರ?ೕಪPರ BಾಲೂMಕು, ಕmÉÖ/ೊಪ)ಲು ಾಮ ಆVರುತCೆ. ಎ-1 ಆ$ೋv 3ನ= ಕು>ಾ ಎ fo f. ?ದ@ಯ:, 35 ವಷX, ಎ-2 f. ?ದ@ಯ: fo Tವಂತಹ ೋರಯ:, 72 ವಷX, ಎ-3 Dೇ>ಾ /ೋಂ f. ?ದ@ಯ:, 52 ವಷX, ಎ-4 ಸಂಜ= ಕು>ಾ ಎ. fo f. ?ದ@ಯ:, 32 ವಷX ರವರು ಒಂೇ ಕುಟುಂಬ¸ÀÜ$ಾVದು@, ಎ-2 ಮತುC ಎ-3 ರವರು ದಂಪNಗ7ಾVದು@, ಎ-1 ಮತುC ಎ-4 ರವರು ಎ-1-ಎ-2 ದಂಪNಗಳ ಮಕI7ಾVರುBಾC$ೆ, ಎ-1 ಂದ ಎ-4 ರವರು Qಾ Hೖಸೂರು ನಗರ, ಆಲನಹO^, ಬuಾವ"ೆ, /ೆ.ಇ.f. ಕnೇ YಂŠಾಗ, 10ೇ ಅಡ‰ರ8ೆC, 4ೇ ಮುಖ:ರ8ೆC, ಮೆ ನಂ. 18 ರ ಸ„ಂತ ಮೆಯ M Uಾಸ>ಾa/ೊಂaರುBಾC$ೆ. ಎ-1 ಂದ 3-4 ರವರು ಮೂಲತಃ ಮಂಡ: jೆM, ಮಳವO^, BಾಲೂMಕು, hರುಾವಲು QೋಬO, ಕ®ÄÌk ಅಂnೆ, xಕI>ಾOೆ /ೊಪ)ಲು ಆVರುತCೆ. ಎ 1 ರವರು ಸು>ಾರು f.ಇ. ಪದ3 Uಾ:ಸಂಗ ಮುV?/ೊಂಡು, ಸು>ಾರು ಹತುC ವಷXTಂದ ಅHೕ/ಾದ Meೕ ೆಲ?ರುBಾC$ೆ. ಎ-2 ರವರ ಕಂಾಯ ಇಾŒೆಯ M ಾಮೆhI$ಾV 8ೇUೆಸ M? _ವೃತC$ಾVರುBಾC$ೆ, ಎ-3 ರವರು ಗೃYk`ಾVರುBಾC$ೆ. ಎ-4 ರವರು f.ಇ. ಪದ3ೕದರಾVರುBಾC$ೆ. 8ಾ†-1 ರವರ ಹುಟೂರು ಮತುC ಆ$ೋvಗಳ ಊರುಗ7ೆರಡೂ ಹNCರದ ಊರುಗ7ಾVರುತCUೆ. ಎ-5 ಆ. ನಂಜುಂಡಯ: fo Tವಂಗತ ರಂಗಯ:, 71 ವಷX ಮತುC ಎ-6 ಅರುF ಕು>ಾ ಎo. fo ಆ. ನಂಜುಂಡಯ:, 38 ವಷX ರವರು Qಾ ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ, ಕಲ>ಾಲನಗರ, ಶಂಕಾXŽ ಬ?5ಾ@ಣದ ಹNCರ, 4ೇ ಅಡ‰ರ8ೆC, 4ೇ ಮುಖ:ರ8ೆC, ನಂ. 411 ರ ಸ„ಂತ ಮೆಯ M Uಾಸ>ಾa/ೊಂaರುBಾC$ೆ. ಸದ ಎ-5 ಮತುC ಎ-6 ರವರ ಸ„ಂತ ಊರೂ ಕೂಡ xಕI>ಾO/ೆ /ೊಪ)ಲು 22 ಾಮ ಆVರುತCೆ. ಎ-5 ರವರು ಸದ ಎ-1 ಮತುC 8ೌಮ:ರವರ ಎರಡೂ ಕುಟುಂಬಗOೆ ಪರಸ)ರ ಗಂಡು ಮತುC QೆಣುS Bೋ?ದ ವ:hC`ಾVದು@, ಎ-1 ಂದ ಎ-4 ರವರ ಸಂಬಂJಕರೂ ಕೂಡ ಆVರುBಾC$ೆ. ಎ-5 ರವರು ffಎಂvಯ M 8ೇUೆ ಸ M?ದು@, _ವೃತC ೌಕರ$ಾVರುBಾC$ೆ. ಎ-6 ರವರು ಎ-5 ರವರ ಮಗಾVದು@, f.ಇ. ಪದ3 Uಾ:ಸಂಗ >ಾaದು@, ŒಾಸV ಕಂಪ_ಯ M /ೆಲಸ >ಾಡುNCರುBಾC$ೆ. 8ಾ†-16 3ೋದರವರು 8ಾ†-1 ರವರ ಪN5`ಾVದು@, 8ಾ†-17 ಸು>ಾ ರವರು 8ಾ†-1 ರವರ 0ದಲೇ ಮಗ7ಾVರುBಾC7ೆ, 8ಾ†-1 ರವರ ಕುಟುಂಬುವ ತಮL ಎರಡೇ ಮಗ7ಾದ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 3Uಾಹ >ಾಡಲು ಗಂಡು ಹುಡುಕುNCರುUಾೆ 2024ೇ ಮದ:ದ M ಎ-5 ಆ$ೋvಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಎ-1 ರವರ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸಂಪಕX/ೆI ಬಂTದು@, ಎ-1 ಂದ ಎ-6 ರವರು 8ಾ†-1 ರವರ ಮೆೆ ಬಂದು QೋVದು@, ನಂತರ ಪರಸ)ರ >ಾತುಕBೆ`ಾVದು@, ಎ-1 ಮತುC 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 3Uಾಹ >ಾಡಲು ಎರಡೂ ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳ\ ಒv)/ೊಂaದು@, Tಾಂಕ:23-08-2024 ರಂದು ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ ಾಗರŠಾ3ಯ Mರುವ 8ಾ„N Qೊ•ೇಲ5 DಾbXQಾಲ5 M 8ಾ„l ಮತುC ಎ-1 ರವರ 3Uಾಹ _ˆXBಾಥXUಾVರುತCೆ. ಆ ಸಮಯದ M ಎರಡೂ ಕuೆಯವರು ಗಂಡು ಮತುC QೆkSೆ ಪರಸ)ರ xನ5ದ ಉಂಗುರ _ೕaರುBಾC$ೆ. 2024ೇ ನUೆಂಬ 9 ಮತುC 10ೇ Bಾೕ•ನಂದು Hೖಸೂರು ನಗರದ ಆಲನಹO^ ಬuಾವ"ೆಯ Mರುವ ೆಾ:h ಕಾ:ಣ ಮಂಟಪದ M ಎ-1 ಮತುC 8ಾಮ:ರವರ 3Uಾಹ ೆರUೇರುತCೆ. ಸದ 3Uಾಹದ ಸಮಯದ M ಈ Yಂೆ ಎ-1 ಂದ ಎ-6 ರವರು ಒBಾCಯ >ಾaದಂBೆ 8ಾ†-1 ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 200 ಾಂ ತೂಕ xಾ5ಭರಣ Qಾhದು@, ಎ-1 ರವೆ 65 ಾಂ ತೂಕದ xಾ5ಭರಣ Qಾಗೂ 1250 ಾಂ ತೂಕದ ೆO^ಯ ವಸುCಗಳನು5 _ೕaರುBಾC$ೆ. Qಾಗೂ ಎ-1 ಂದ ಎ-6 ರವರು 3Uಾಹದ ಮುನ5 ಒBಾCಯ >ಾaದಂBೆ ೆಂಗಳನ M ಅಥUಾ Hೖಸೂನ M _Uೇಶನವನು5 ವರದ†"ೆ`ಾV _ೕಡಲು 8ಾ†-1 ರವರು ಬಲವಂತUಾV ಒv)/ೊಂaರುBಾC$ೆ. ಎ-1 ಂದ ಎ-6 ರವರು ಒBಾCಯ >ಾaದಂBೆ Hೖಸೂನ Meೕ ಅದೂ@`ಾV 3Uಾಹ >ಾa/ೊnÖದು@. ಸದ 3Uಾಹ/ೆI ಅಂಾಜು 38 ಂದ 40 ಲ’ Uೆಚyವನು5 8ಾ†-1 ರವರು >ಾaರುBಾC$ೆ 3UಾಹDಾದ ನಂತರ ಎ-1 ರವರು ಸು>ಾರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರನು5 fಟು, ಅHೕ/ಾೆ QೋVದು@ 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ತವರು ಮೆಯ MರುBಾC$ೆ. ನಂತರ 2025ೇ “ೆಬುವ 5 ರಂದು 8ೌಮ:ಳ\ ಅHೕ/ಾೆ QೋVದು@, ಅHೕ/ಾದ M ಎ-1 ಮತುC 8ೌಮ: ಇಬR$ೇ Uಾಸ>ಾa/ೊಂaದು@, ಎ-1 ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ _ೕaದ@ >ಾನ?ಕ ಮತುC ೈYಕ Yಂ8ೆ|ಂದ ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು Tಾಂಕ: 19-04-2025 ರಂದು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ಅHೕ/ಾTಂದ 8ಾ†-1 ರವರ ಮೆೆ ಬಂದರು. ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ: 23-04- 2025 ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ಮಾ:ಹ5 ಮಾ:ಹ5 ಮಾ:ಹ5 ಮಾ:ಹ5 ಸು>ಾರು ಸು>ಾರು ಸು>ಾರು ಸು>ಾರು 3.00 ಗಂ•ೆೆ ಗಂ•ೆೆ ಗಂ•ೆೆ ಗಂ•ೆೆ ಎಎಎಎ-2 ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎಎಎಎ-6 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ†-1 ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಬಂTದು@ ಬಂTದು@ ಬಂTದು@ ಬಂTದು@, ಆಆಆಆ ಸಮಯದ M ಸಮಯದ M ಸಮಯದ M ಸಮಯದ M, ಮೆಯ M ಮೆಯ M ಮೆಯ M ಮೆಯ M 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ†-16 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ†-17 Qಾಗೂ Qಾಗೂ Qಾಗೂ Qಾಗೂ 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ಇದ@ರು ಇದ@ರು ಇದ@ರು ಇದ@ರು, ಎಎಎಎ-2 ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎಎಎಎ- 6 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ >ಾaದು@ >ಾaದು@ >ಾaದು@ >ಾaದು@, ೇ$ೆ ೇ$ೆ ೇ$ೆ ೇ$ೆ ಹುಡುಗ$ೊಂTೆ ಹುಡುಗ$ೊಂTೆ ಹುಡುಗ$ೊಂTೆ ಹುಡುಗ$ೊಂTೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaದು@ ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaದು@ ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaದು@ ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaದು@, ಎಎಎಎ-1 ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ jೕವನ jೕವನ jೕವನ jೕವನ >ಾಡುNCಲM >ಾಡುNCಲM >ಾಡುNCಲM >ಾಡುNCಲM ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇBಾ:J`ಾV _ಂJ?ದು@ _ಂJ?ದು@ _ಂJ?ದು@ _ಂJ?ದು@, ಆಗ ಆಗ ಆಗ ಆಗ 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು Bಾನು Bಾನು Bಾನು Bಾನು `ಾ$ೊಂTಗೂ `ಾ$ೊಂTಗೂ `ಾ$ೊಂTಗೂ `ಾ$ೊಂTಗೂ `ಾವPೇ `ಾವPೇ `ಾವPೇ `ಾವPೇ ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaಲM ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaಲM ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaಲM ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaಲM, ಎಎಎಎ-1 ರರರರವ$ೇ ವ$ೇ ವ$ೇ ವ$ೇ ನನ5ನು5 ನನ5ನು5 ನನ5ನು5 ನನ5ನು5 QೆಂಡN`ಾV QೆಂಡN`ಾV QೆಂಡN`ಾV QೆಂಡN`ಾV 23 ೋa/ೊಂaಲM ೋa/ೊಂaಲM ೋa/ೊಂaಲM ೋa/ೊಂaಲM, ಅವರು ಅವರು ಅವರು ಅವರು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು Tನವ~ Tನವ~ Tನವ~ Tನವ~ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ನೊ5ಂTೆ ನೊ5ಂTೆ ನೊ5ಂTೆ ನೊ5ಂTೆ ಒbೆ ಒbೆ ಒbೆ ಒbೆ ಮಲVರುವPTಲM ಮಲVರುವPTಲM ಮಲVರುವPTಲM ಮಲVರುವPTಲM, ಅವೆ ಅವೆ ಅವೆ ಅವೆ ಪPರುಷತ„ ಪPರುಷತ„ ಪPರುಷತ„ ಪPರುಷತ„ ಇೆeೕ ಇೆeೕ ಇೆeೕ ಇೆeೕ ಎಂಬುದರ ಎಂಬುದರ ಎಂಬುದರ ಎಂಬುದರ ಸಂಶಯ3ರುತCೆ ಸಂಶಯ3ರುತCೆ ಸಂಶಯ3ರುತCೆ ಸಂಶಯ3ರುತCೆ, ಅವರ ಅವರ ಅವರ ಅವರ ತಪP)ಗಳನು5 ತಪP)ಗಳನು5 ತಪP)ಗಳನು5 ತಪP)ಗಳನು5 ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ೋಪಗಳನು5 ೋಪಗಳನು5 ೋಪಗಳನು5 ೋಪಗಳನು5 ಮುxy/ೊಳ^ಲು ಮುxy/ೊಳ^ಲು ಮುxy/ೊಳ^ಲು ಮುxy/ೊಳ^ಲು ಇಲMಸಲMದ ಇಲMಸಲMದ ಇಲMಸಲMದ ಇಲMಸಲMದ ತಪP)ಗಳನು5 ತಪP)ಗಳನು5 ತಪP)ಗಳನು5 ತಪP)ಗಳನು5 ನನ5 ನನ5 ನನ5 ನನ5 Hೕೆ Hೕೆ Hೕೆ Hೕೆ ಆ$ೋಪ ಆ$ೋಪ ಆ$ೋಪ ಆ$ೋಪ >ಾಡುNCT@ೕ$ೆ >ಾಡುNCT@ೕ$ೆ >ಾಡುNCT@ೕ$ೆ >ಾಡುNCT@ೕ$ೆ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇBಾ:J`ಾV 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು QೇOರುBಾC$ೆ QೇOರುBಾC$ೆ QೇOರುBಾC$ೆ QೇOರುBಾC$ೆ. ಆಆಆಆ ಸಮಯದ ಸಮಯದ ಸಮಯದ ಸಮಯದ , 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ†-1 ರವರೂ ರವರೂ ರವರೂ ರವರೂ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ Hೕೆ Hೕೆ Hೕೆ Hೕೆ /ೋಪೊಂaದು@ /ೋಪೊಂaದು@ /ೋಪೊಂaದು@ /ೋಪೊಂaದು@, ಎಎಎಎ-2 ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎಎಎಎ-6 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ:ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ Hೕೆ Hೕೆ Hೕೆ Hೕೆ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ >ಾaದ@ನು5 >ಾaದ@ನು5 >ಾaದ@ನು5 >ಾaದ@ನು5 ೋa ೋa ೋa ೋa 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ ರವೆ ರವೆ ರವೆ ಬುT”Uಾದ ಬುT”Uಾದ ಬುT”Uಾದ ಬುT”Uಾದ QೇO QೇO QೇO QೇO ಗಂಡನ ಗಂಡನ ಗಂಡನ ಗಂಡನ ಮೆಯ M ಮೆಯ M ಮೆಯ M ಮೆಯ M ಅನುಸ?/ೊಂಡು ಅನುಸ?/ೊಂಡು ಅನುಸ?/ೊಂಡು ಅನುಸ?/ೊಂಡು Qೋಗೇ/ೆಂದು Qೋಗೇ/ೆಂದು Qೋಗೇ/ೆಂದು Qೋಗೇ/ೆಂದು QೇOದು@ QೇOದು@ QೇOದು@ QೇOದು@, ನನ5 ನನ5 ನನ5 ನನ5 ಮಗಳ\ ಮಗಳ\ ಮಗಳ\ ಮಗಳ\ ತಪP) ತಪP) ತಪP) ತಪP) >ಾaದ@ M >ಾaದ@ M >ಾaದ@ M >ಾaದ@ M ಾೇ ಾೇ ಾೇ ಾೇ ಆ/ೆಯನು5 ಆ/ೆಯನು5 ಆ/ೆಯನು5 ಆ/ೆಯನು5 ಮೆ|ಂದ ಮೆ|ಂದ ಮೆ|ಂದ ಮೆ|ಂದ Qೊ Qೊ Qೊ Qೊರೆ ರೆ ರೆ ರೆ QಾಕುBೆCೕೆ QಾಕುBೆCೕೆ QಾಕುBೆCೕೆ QಾಕುBೆCೕೆ, ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು _ೕಡುBೆCೕೆ _ೕಡುBೆCೕೆ _ೕಡುBೆCೕೆ _ೕಡುBೆCೕೆ. ನನ5 ನನ5 ನನ5 ನನ5 ಮಕIಳನು5 ಮಕIಳನು5 ಮಕIಳನು5 ಮಕIಳನು5 ಸಂಪಾಯUಾV ಸಂಪಾಯUಾV ಸಂಪಾಯUಾV ಸಂಪಾಯUಾV ˆಸುCಬದ”UಾV ˆಸುCಬದ”UಾV ˆಸುCಬದ”UಾV ˆಸುCಬದ”UಾV ೆಳ?ೆ@ೕೆ ೆಳ?ೆ@ೕೆ ೆಳ?ೆ@ೕೆ ೆಳ?ೆ@ೕೆ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಇBಾ:T`ಾV ಇBಾ:T`ಾV ಇBಾ:T`ಾV ಇBಾ:T`ಾV QೇOರುBಾC$ೆ QೇOರುBಾC$ೆ QೇOರುBಾC$ೆ QೇOರುBಾC$ೆ. Tಾಂಕ:24-04-2025 ರಂದು 8ಾ†-16 ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ಮಲಗುವ /ೊಠaೆ ೆOೆ–, ಸು>ಾರು 6.30 ಗಂ•ೆೆ QೋV ೋಡಾV 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ಮಲಗುವ ಮಂಚದ Hೕೆ ?ೕ|ಂದ ?ೕ ಂŽ “ಾ:£ÉÎ ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ಮೃತಪbರುBಾC$ೆ. 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ಮೃತಪಟ ಸ—ಳದ M 8ಾ†-2 ಮತುC 3 ರವರ Qಾಜ$ಾNಯ M ಪಂnಾಮ ಜರುV?ದು@, ೕ ಅJ/ಾ`ಾದ 8ಾ†-29 ರವರು ಅಪ$ಾಧ ಸ—ಳ ಪˆೕಲೆ ಅJ/ಾಗಳ\ (8ೋ/ೋ) ಸಂಗY?/ೊಟ ŠೌNಕ ವಸುCಗ7ಾದ 1) uೆvÉÆßÃ, 2) ¥Éo, 3)0ೈ' iೕo ಮತುC 4) nಾಕುಗಳನು5 ಅ>ಾನತುCಪa?/ೊಂಡು ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ:: 80/2025 ರ M ಅ>ಾನತುCಪa?/ೊಂaರುತCೆ, 8ಾ†-20 ಆದ 3ƒೇಷ ತಹˆೕಾ@ Qಾಗೂ 8ಾ†-4 ಂದ 9 ರವರ ಸಮುLಖದ M 3/ೋ`ಾ ಆಸ)Bೆಯ ಶUಾಾರದ M ಶವ ತ_Œೆ ಜರುV?ದರು, ಮೃತೇಹದ Hೕ ರುವ ಾಯಗಳ ಬೆ–, ನಮೂದು >ಾaರುತCೆ. ಮY7ಾ ೕ ಅJ/ಾ`ಾದ 8ಾ†-26 ˆೕಮN /ಾUಾ:ˆೕ, v.ಎ.ಐ. Qಾಗೂ ತ_ŒಾJ/ಾ`ಾದ 8ಾ†-30 ರವರು ಇದು@ ಮೃತ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ ಮೃತೇಹವನು5 Uೈದ:$ಾದ 8ಾ†-21 ರವಂದ ಶವ ಪೕ™ೆ >ಾa?ದು@, ವರT ಸಂŒೆ:: 1196/2025 ಅನು5 ಪuೆದು/ೊಂaದ@, 'DEATH IS DUE TO ASPHYXIA AS A RESULT OF HANGING * ಅšDಾಯ ವರT _ೕaರುBಾC$ೆ. ಅಲMೇ ಮೃತೇಹದ Hೕೆ 7 ಾಯಗOರುವ ಬೆ– ನಮೂದು >ಾaರುತCೆ. Uೈದ:$ಾದ 8ಾ†-21 ರವರು ಮೃBೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ ಮೃತೇಹದ Hೕ ದ@ ಬ•ೆಯನು5 ಸಂಗY?/ೊbದು@, ೕ ಅJ/ಾ`ಾದ 8ಾ†-26 ರವರು ತಂದು Qಾಜರುಪa?ದು@, ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ::81/2025 ರ M ಅ>ಾನತುCಪa?/ೊಂaರುತCೆ. 8ೌಮ:ರವರ ಮೃತೇಹTಂದ Uೈದ:ರು ಸಂಗY?/ೊಟ 3¸Éì$ಾವನು5 ೕ ಅJ/ಾ`ಾದ 8ಾ†-24 ರವರು ತಂದು Qಾಜರುಪa?ದು@, ಸ„ತು„ಪb ಸಂŒೆ: 83/2025ರ M ಅ>ಾನತುCಪa?/ೊಂaದು@, ೕ ಅJ/ಾ`ಾದ 8ಾ† - 23 ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಎ›.ಎ.ಎ'. ತœೆ ಕಳ\Y?ದು@, ವರT ಬಂTದು@ ವರT ಸಂŒೆ: : FSL/FLMS/TX/1682/2025 ರ M 'Residues of Volatile poisons, Ethyl alcohol, Pesticides, Alkaloids, Narcotics, Barbiturates, Benzodiazepine group of drugs and Toxic metal ions were not detected in all the above Stated Articles' ಎಂದು 24 ಅšDಾಯ ವರT ಬಂTರುತCೆ. ಸದ ವರTಯನು5 3/ೋ`ಾ ಆಸ)Bೆಯ Uೈದ:$ಾಢ 8ಾ†-21 ರವೆ _ೕa, ಅಂNಮ ಸ)ಷ ಅšDಾಯ ವರT ಪuೆಯೇ/ಾVರುತCೆ. ಮೃBೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ಾಯುವ ಮುನ5 ಬ$ೆTರುವ uೆvÉÆßÃmï /ೈಬರವkೆ ಮತುC ಸYಯನು5 ತœೆ ಕಳ\Y? ವರT ಪuೆಯಲು ಅಗತ:3ರುವ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ ಒv)ತ ಬರವkೆ ಮತುC ಸY ಸಂಗಹ ಸಂಬಂಧ 8ಾ†-1 ರವಂದ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ ಬರವkೆ|ರುವ ೋ ಪPಸCವನು5 ಪಂಚ$ಾದ 8ಾ†-10 ಮತುC 11 ರವರ Qಾಜಯ M ಅ>ಾನತುCಪa?/ೊಂಡು ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ: 90/2025 ರ M ನಮೂT?ರುತCೆ. 8ೌಮ:ರವರ ಸYಗಳ\ ಲಭ:3ದು@ ಅವರ ಎ¢ a ಎ› ? ಾ:ಂ£ ŒಾBೆ ನಂ. 50100011044948 ಇದನು5 Bೆ$ೆಯಲು ಸY >ಾa ಸ M?ರುವ “ಾರಂ, /ೆ.Uೈ? ಾಖೆಗಳ ಅಸಲನು5 ೕ ಅJ/ಾ`ಾದ 8ಾ†-22 ರವರು ತಂದು Qಾಜರುಪa?ದು@, 8ಾ†-6. ಮತುC 10 ರವರ Qಾಜ$ಾNಯ M ಅ>ಾನತುCಪa?/ೊಂಡು ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ:: 141/2025 ರ M ನಮೂT?ರುತCೆ. ಸದ uೆvÉÆßÃmï, ಬರವkೆ|ರುವ ೋ ಪPಸCಕ ಮತುC ಸYಗOರುವ ಾ:ಂ£ ŒಾBೆಯ ಾಖೆಗಳನು5 ಬರವkೆ ತœೆ ಕಳ\Y?, ವರT ಪuೆಯುವದು ಾh|ರುತCೆ. ಎ-1 ಆ$ೋvಯು Tಾಂಕ: 04-06-2025 ರಂದು ಅHೕ/ಾTಂದ ೆಂಗಳನ /ೆಂDೇೌಡ ಅಂBಾ$ಾz¤ೕಯ 3>ಾನ _ಾ@ಣ/ೆI ಬಂJದು@, ಎ'.ಓ.?. sಾಯ Mದ@ ಆrಾರದ Hೕೆ ಇlLೇಷo ಅJ/ಾಗಳ\ ಎ-1 ಆ$ೋvಯನು5 ವಶ/ೆI ಪuೆದು/ೊಂಡು, ಸ—Oೕಯ ೕಸರ ವಶ/ೆI _ೕaದು@, ೕ ಅJ/ಾ`ಾದ 8ಾ†-27 ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಎ-1 ಆ$ೋvಯನು5 ಕ$ೆತಂದು, Dಾಥlಕ 3nಾರ"ೆ >ಾaದು@, ಅಂೇ ದಸCV >ಾaರುತCೆ. ಆ ಸಮಯದ M ಆ$ೋvಯ ವಶದ Mದ@ ತ_Œೆೆ ಪ~ರಕUೆ_?ದ ಆತನು ಅHೕ/ಾದ M 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTಗ ಇದ@ /ಾಲದ M ಮೆಯ M 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ NOಯದಂBೆ $ೆ/ಾ¦X >ಾa/ೊಂaದ@ ಎರಡು $ೆ/ಾಡ–Xಳ\, Dೆ£ÉØçöʧ, 0ೈ' iೕನ–ಳನು5 ಪಂnಾಯುCಾರ$ಾದ 8ಾ†- 13 ಮತುC 14 ರವರ Qಾಜಯ M ಅ>ಾನತುCಪa?/ೊಂಡು ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ:: 121/2025 ರ M ನಮೂT?ರುತCೆ. ಎ-1 ಆ$ೋvಯು ಪಸುCತ ಾ:`ಾಂಗ ಬಂಧನದ MರುBಾC$ೆ. Tಾಂಕ:23-04-225 ರಂದು ಎ-2 ಂದ ಎ-6 ರವರು 8ಾ†-1 ರವರ ಮೆೆ Qೋದ Tನ, ಆ$ೋvಗಳ\ ಎ-1 ರವ$ೊಂTೆ 0ೈ' ಕ$ೆ ಮೂಲಕ >ಾತಾa/ೊಂಡು, ಆತನು _ೕaದ _ೇXಶನದಂBೆ 8ಾ†-1 ರವರ ಮೆಯ M ಎ-2 ಂದ ಎ-6 ರವರು 8ಾ†-1 ಮತುC 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTಗ ಜಗಳ >ಾaದ ಅವJಯ M ಎ-4 ರವರು ತಮL 0ೈ' ನ M ಧ¨_ ಸಂಗಹ >ಾa/ೊಂaದು@, ಅದನು5 ಒಂದು Dೆo uೆ©ªÉÎ Qಾh/ೊಂಡು, 0ೈ' ನ M, a ೕ >ಾaರುವPಾV NO?ದು@, ನಂತರ Dೆ£ÉØçöʧ ಮತುC 0ೈ' iೕo ಅನು5 Qಾಜರುಪa?ದು@, ಅವPಗಳನು5 ಪಂಚ$ಾದ 8ಾ†-13 ಮತುC 15 ರವರ Qಾಜಯ M ಅ>ಾನತುCಪa?/ೊಂಡು ಸ„ತುCಪb, ಸಂŒೆ:: 130/2025 ರ M, ನಮೂT?ರುತCೆ. 25 ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ:: 80/20205 ರ Mನ ಮೃBೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 0ೈ' iೕo ಅನು5 ೕ ಅJ/ಾ`ಾದ -28 ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ ?.ಇ.ಎo. ೕ !ಾ"ೆೆ ಕಳ\Y?ದು@, 0ೈ' iೕo ಾ£ ಆVದು@, Dಾವ¦X ೊNCಲMದ /ಾರಣ bೕ§ >ಾಡಲು 8ಾದ:3ಲMUೆಂದು ವರT _ೕaರುBಾC$ೆ. ಸ„ತುCಫಟ ಸಂŒೆ:: 121/2025 ಮತುC 130/2025 ರ Mನ ಎ-1 ಮತುC ಎ-4 ರವಂದ ಅ>ಾನತುCಪa?/ೊಂಡ 0ೈ' iೕನ–ಳ\, Dೆ Dೆ£ÉØçöʪÀÎಳ\ Qಾಗೂ Uಾ= $ೆ/ಾ¦X ಗಳನು5 ?ಐa 8ೈಬ ೕ !ಾ"ೆೆ 8ಾ†-28 ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಸ M?ದು@, ವರT ಬರುವPದು ಾh|ರುತCೆ. ಎ-2 ಂದ ಎ-6 ಆ$ೋvಗಳ\ ಘನ ??Qೆ¢ ಾ:`ಾಲಯTಂದ ಷರತುC ಬzÀÞ _ೕ’"ಾ sಾlೕನು ಪuೆದು/ೊಂಡು Qಾಜ$ಾVದು@, ಆ$ೋvಗಳನು5 3nಾರ"ೆ >ಾaದು@, ಸ„ ಇnಾ« QೇO/ೆ ಾಖ ?/ೊಂaರುತCೆ. Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ:23-04-2025 ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ಎಎಎಎ-2 ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎಎಎಎ-6 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ†-1 ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ QೋVಾ@ಗ QೋVಾ@ಗ QೋVಾ@ಗ QೋVಾ@ಗ, ಎಎಎಎ-6 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTೆ Qೆಚುy Qೆಚುy Qೆಚುy Qೆಚುy ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ >ಾaದು@ >ಾaದು@ >ಾaದು@ >ಾaದು@, ಎಎಎಎ-6 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ಎಎಎಎ-1 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು QೇOಾ@$ೆ QೇOಾ@$ೆ QೇOಾ@$ೆ QೇOಾ@$ೆ ಎಂೇ ಎಂೇ ಎಂೇ ಎಂೇ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ ಹಲವP ಹಲವP ಹಲವP ಹಲವP ಪƒೆ5 ಪƒೆ5 ಪƒೆ5 ಪƒೆ5ಗಳನು5 ಗಳನು5 ಗಳನು5 ಗಳನು5 /ೇOದು@ /ೇOದು@ /ೇOದು@ /ೇOದು@, ಪರ ಪರ ಪರ ಪರ ಪPರಷೊಂTೆ ಪPರಷೊಂTೆ ಪPರಷೊಂTೆ ಪPರಷೊಂTೆ Qೆಚುy Qೆಚುy Qೆಚುy Qೆಚುy >ಾತಾಡುNCೕ`ಾ >ಾತಾಡುNCೕ`ಾ >ಾತಾಡುNCೕ`ಾ >ಾತಾಡುNCೕ`ಾ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು 8ೌಮ:ರವರನು5 8ೌಮ:ರವರನು5 8ೌಮ:ರವರನು5 8ೌಮ:ರವರನು5 Yೕ`ಾOಸುವ Yೕ`ಾOಸುವ Yೕ`ಾOಸುವ Yೕ`ಾOಸುವ ೕNಯ M ೕNಯ M ೕNಯ M ೕNಯ M ಅಕಮ ಅಕಮ ಅಕಮ ಅಕಮ ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaರುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaರುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaರುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaರುವ ೕNಯ M ೕNಯ M ೕNಯ M ೕNಯ M ಅವ>ಾನ ಅವ>ಾನ ಅವ>ಾನ ಅವ>ಾನ >ಾಡುವ >ಾಡುವ >ಾಡುವ >ಾಡುವ ೕNಯ M ೕNಯ M ೕNಯ M ೕNಯ M sೋರು sೋರು sೋರು sೋರು >ಾa >ಾa >ಾa >ಾa /ೇOರುವPದು /ೇOರುವPದು /ೇOರುವPದು /ೇOರುವPದು ಕಂಡುಬಂTರುತCೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂTರುತCೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂTರುತCೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂTರುತCೆ. 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: ಸ„Šಾವದ$ಾVದು@ ಸ„Šಾವದ$ಾVದು@ ಸ„Šಾವದ$ಾVದು@ ಸ„Šಾವದ$ಾVದು@, `ಾ$ೊಂTಗೂ `ಾ$ೊಂTಗೂ `ಾ$ೊಂTಗೂ `ಾ$ೊಂTಗೂ Qೆಚುy Qೆಚುy Qೆಚುy Qೆಚುy >ಾತಾಡದ >ಾತಾಡದ >ಾತಾಡದ >ಾತಾಡದ ಮೃಧು ಮೃಧು ಮೃಧು ಮೃಧು ಸ„Šಾ ಸ„Šಾ ಸ„Šಾ ಸ„Šಾವದವ$ಾVರುವPದು ವದವ$ಾVರುವPದು ವದವ$ಾVರುವPದು ವದವ$ಾVರುವPದು 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 8ೆ5ೕYತ$ಾದ 8ೆ5ೕYತ$ಾದ 8ೆ5ೕYತ$ಾದ 8ೆ5ೕYತ$ಾದ 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ†-18 ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ 3nಾರ"ೆ|ಂದ 3nಾರ"ೆ|ಂದ 3nಾರ"ೆ|ಂದ 3nಾರ"ೆ|ಂದ NOದುಬಂTರುತCೆ NOದುಬಂTರುತCೆ NOದುಬಂTರುತCೆ NOದುಬಂTರುತCೆ. 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ಅHೕರ/ಾದ M ಅHೕರ/ಾದ M ಅHೕರ/ಾದ M ಅHೕರ/ಾದ M ಎಎಎಎ-1 ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ /ಾಲದ M /ಾಲದ M /ಾಲದ M /ಾಲದ M ಅವಾದ ಅವಾದ ಅವಾದ ಅವಾದ Bೊಂದ$ೆಯ Bೊಂದ$ೆಯ Bೊಂದ$ೆಯ Bೊಂದ$ೆಯ ಬೆ– ಬೆ– ಬೆ– ಬೆ– 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ†-18 ರವ$ೊಂTTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTTೆ ಕ$ೆ>ಾa ಕ$ೆ>ಾa ಕ$ೆ>ಾa ಕ$ೆ>ಾa >ಾತಾaದು@ >ಾತಾaದು@ >ಾತಾaದು@ >ಾತಾaದು@, Uಾ Uಾ Uಾ Uಾ ಅq ಅq ಅq ಅq nಾ nಾ nಾ nಾ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ >ಾaರುBಾC$ೆ >ಾaರುBಾC$ೆ >ಾaರುBಾC$ೆ >ಾaರುBಾC$ೆ. ಸದ ಸದ ಸದ ಸದ nಾ nಾ nಾ nಾ ಅನು5 ಅನು5 ಅನು5 ಅನು5 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ†-18 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು _ೕaದು@ _ೕaದು@ _ೕaದು@ _ೕaದು@, ಅದನು5 ಅದನು5 ಅದನು5 ಅದನು5 ಪˆೕ ಸಾV ಪˆೕ ಸಾV ಪˆೕ ಸಾV ಪˆೕ ಸಾV, 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ಅHೕ/ಾದ M ಅHೕ/ಾದ M ಅHೕ/ಾದ M ಅHೕ/ಾದ M, ಎಎಎಎ-1 ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ /ಾಲದ M /ಾಲದ M /ಾಲದ M /ಾಲದ M ಎಎಎಎ-1 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರನು5 8ೌಮ:ರವರನು5 8ೌಮ:ರವರನು5 8ೌಮ:ರವರನು5 ಎಂTಗೂ ಎಂTಗೂ ಎಂTಗೂ ಎಂTಗೂ ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ೆರO_ಂದಲೂ ೆರO_ಂದಲೂ ೆರO_ಂದಲೂ ೆರO_ಂದಲೂ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಮುbರು ಮುbರು ಮುbರು ಮುbರುವP ವP ವP ವP¢®è ಸ`ಾV ಸ`ಾV ಸ`ಾV ಸ`ಾV >ಾತಾaಸುNCರ ಲM >ಾತಾaಸುNCರ ಲM >ಾತಾaಸುNCರ ಲM >ಾತಾaಸುNCರ ಲM ಮೆಯ M ಮೆಯ M ಮೆಯ M ಮೆಯ M ಒಬRಳೆ5ೕ ಒಬRಳೆ5ೕ ಒಬRಳೆ5ೕ ಒಬRಳೆ5ೕ fಟು fಟು fಟು fಟು, Qೊರಗuೆ|ಂದ Qೊರಗuೆ|ಂದ Qೊರಗuೆ|ಂದ Qೊರಗuೆ|ಂದ fೕಗ fೕಗ fೕಗ fೕಗ Qಾh/ೊಂಡು Qಾh/ೊಂಡು Qಾh/ೊಂಡು Qಾh/ೊಂಡು QೋಗುNCದ@ರು QೋಗುNCದ@ರು QೋಗುNCದ@ರು QೋಗುNCದ@ರು ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಬಂಾ ಬಂಾ ಬಂಾ ಬಂಾಗಗಗಗ ಪBೆ:ೕಕ ಪBೆ:ೕಕ ಪBೆ:ೕಕ ಪBೆ:ೕಕ ರೂಂನ M ರೂಂನ M ರೂಂನ M ರೂಂನ M ಕುOತು/ೊಳ\^NCದ@ರು ಕುOತು/ೊಳ\^NCದ@ರು ಕುOತು/ೊಳ\^NCದ@ರು ಕುOತು/ೊಳ\^NCದ@ರು ಮೆಯ M ಮೆಯ M ಮೆಯ M ಮೆಯ M ಇಬR ಇಬR ಇಬR ಇಬRgÀÆ ೇ$ೆ ೇ$ೆ ೇ$ೆ ೇ$ೆ ೇ$ೆ ೇ$ೆ ೇ$ೆ ೇ$ೆ ರೂಂನ M ರೂಂನ M ರೂಂನ M ರೂಂನ M, ಮಲಗುNCದು@ ಮಲಗುNCದು@ ಮಲಗುNCದು@ ಮಲಗುNCದು@, ಎಂTಗೂ ಎಂTಗೂ ಎಂTಗೂ ಎಂTಗೂ ಒbೆ ಒbೆ ಒbೆ ಒbೆ ಮಲVರುವPTಲM ಮಲVರುವPTಲM ಮಲVರುವPTಲM ಮಲVರುವPTಲM, ಸ`ಾV ಸ`ಾV ಸ`ಾV ಸ`ಾV >ಾತಾaಸುNCರ ಲM >ಾತಾaಸುNCರ ಲM >ಾತಾaಸುNCರ ಲM >ಾತಾaಸುNCರ ಲM ಇ M ಇ M ಇ M ಇ M ಇರಲು ಇರಲು ಇರಲು ಇರಲು ಆಗುNCಲM ಆಗುNCಲM ಆಗುNCಲM ಆಗುNCಲM, ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು Uೇ7ೆ Uೇ7ೆ Uೇ7ೆ Uೇ7ೆ ಇನು5 ಇನು5 ಇನು5 ಇನು5 15 Tನಗಳ M Tನಗಳ M Tನಗಳ M Tನಗಳ M ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ೆಂಗಳೆ ೆಂಗಳೆ ೆಂಗಳೆ ೆಂಗಳೆ ಬರTದ@ M ಬರTದ@ M ಬರTದ@ M ಬರTದ@ M, ನನ5 ನನ5 ನನ5 ನನ5 uೆ¦ uೆ¦ uೆ¦ uೆ¦ ಾa ಾa ಾa ಾa ಬರುತCೆ ಬರುತCೆ ಬರುತCೆ ಬರುತCೆ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇರುತCೆ ಇರುತCೆ ಇರುತCೆ ಇರುತCೆ. ಅಲMೆ ಅಲMೆ ಅಲMೆ ಅಲMೆ 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ಅHೕ/ಾದ M ಅHೕ/ಾದ M ಅHೕ/ಾದ M ಅHೕ/ಾದ M ತನ5 ತನ5 ತನ5 ತನ5 ಗಂಡೊಂTೆ ಗಂಡೊಂTೆ ಗಂಡೊಂTೆ ಗಂಡೊಂTೆ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ /ಾಲದ M /ಾಲದ M /ಾಲದ M /ಾಲದ M, ತನಾಗುNCದ@ ತನಾಗುNCದ@ ತನಾಗುNCದ@ ತನಾಗುNCದ@ Bೊಂದ$ೆ Bೊಂದ$ೆ Bೊಂದ$ೆ Bೊಂದ$ೆ ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC Yಂ8ೆಯ Yಂ8ೆಯ Yಂ8ೆಯ Yಂ8ೆಯ ಬೆ– ಬೆ– ಬೆ– ಬೆ–,, 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ†-1, 16 ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC 17 ರವೆ ರವೆ ರವೆ ರವೆ ಕ$ೆ>ಾa ಕ$ೆ>ಾa ಕ$ೆ>ಾa ಕ$ೆ>ಾa >ಾತಾಡುNCಾ@ಗ >ಾತಾಡುNCಾ@ಗ >ಾತಾಡುNCಾ@ಗ >ಾತಾಡುNCಾ@ಗ Qೇಳ\NCದ@ರು Qೇಳ\NCದ@ರು Qೇಳ\NCದ@ರು Qೇಳ\NCದ@ರು. ಅಂದ$ೆ ಅಂದ$ೆ ಅಂದ$ೆ ಅಂದ$ೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ಅHೕ/ಾದ M ಅHೕ/ಾದ M ಅHೕ/ಾದ M ಅHೕ/ಾದ M ಇದ@ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ /ಾಲದ M /ಾಲದ M /ಾಲದ M /ಾಲದ M ಎಎಎಎ-1 ಈತನು ಈತನು ಈತನು ಈತನು ಎಎಎಎ-2 ಂ ಂ ಂ ಂದದದದ ಎಎಎಎ-6 ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ಆಾೆ– ಆಾೆ– ಆಾೆ– ಆಾೆ–, ಸಂಪಕXದ Mದು@ ಸಂಪಕXದ Mದು@ ಸಂಪಕXದ Mದು@ ಸಂಪಕXದ Mದು@, 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ೈYಕUಾV ೈYಕUಾV ೈYಕUಾV ೈYಕUಾV Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ /ೊbರುBಾC$ೆ /ೊbರುBಾC$ೆ /ೊbರುBಾC$ೆ /ೊbರುBಾC$ೆ. ಅಲMೇ ಅಲMೇ ಅಲMೇ ಅಲMೇ Hೖಸೂನ ರುವ Hೖಸೂನ ರುವ Hೖಸೂನ ರುವ Hೖಸೂನ ರುವ 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ†-1 ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ _Uೇಶನವನು5 _Uೇಶನವನು5 _Uೇಶನವನು5 _Uೇಶನವನು5 ಎಎಎಎ-1 ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ Qೆಸೆ Qೆಸೆ Qೆಸೆ Qೆಸೆ ಬ$ೆದು/ೊಡುವಂBೆ ಬ$ೆದು/ೊಡುವಂBೆ ಬ$ೆದು/ೊಡುವಂBೆ ಬ$ೆದು/ೊಡುವಂBೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ ಎಎಎಎ-1 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ಒBಾCಯ ಒBಾCಯ ಒBಾCಯ ಒBಾCಯ >ಾaದು@ >ಾaದು@ >ಾaದು@ >ಾaದು@, ಇೆಲMದಂದ ಇೆಲMದಂದ ಇೆಲMದಂದ ಇೆಲMದಂದ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ ಅನುಭ3?ದ ಅನುಭ3?ದ ಅನುಭ3?ದ ಅನುಭ3?ದ 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ: 19-04- 2025 ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ೆಂಗಳನ ೆಂಗಳನ ೆಂಗಳನ ೆಂಗಳನ ತವರು ತವರು ತವರು ತವರು ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಬಂTದು@ ಬಂTದು@ ಬಂTದು@ ಬಂTದು@, Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ:23-04-2025 ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ಎಎಎಎ-2 ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎಎಎಎ-6 26 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು /ೆಟಾV /ೆಟಾV /ೆಟಾV /ೆಟಾV >ಾತಾa >ಾತಾa >ಾತಾa >ಾತಾa ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ >ಾaದ@ಂದ >ಾaದ@ಂದ >ಾaದ@ಂದ >ಾaದ@ಂದ ೊಂದು/ೊಂaದು@ ೊಂದು/ೊಂaದು@ ೊಂದು/ೊಂaದು@ ೊಂದು/ೊಂaದು@, ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ಆತLಹBೆ: ಆತLಹBೆ: ಆತLಹBೆ: ಆತLಹBೆ: >ಾa/ೊಂaರುBಾC$ೆ >ಾa/ೊಂaರುBಾC$ೆ >ಾa/ೊಂaರುBಾC$ೆ >ಾa/ೊಂaರುBಾC$ೆ. ತ_Œಾ ತ_Œಾ ತ_Œಾ ತ_Œಾ /ಾಲದ M /ಾಲದ M /ಾಲದ M /ಾಲದ M ಸಂಗY?ರುವ ಸಂಗY?ರುವ ಸಂಗY?ರುವ ಸಂಗY?ರುವ 8ಾ™ಾಾರಗOಂದ 8ಾ™ಾಾರಗOಂದ 8ಾ™ಾಾರಗOಂದ 8ಾ™ಾಾರಗOಂದ ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC 3nಾರ"ೆ 3nಾರ"ೆ 3nಾರ"ೆ 3nಾರ"ೆೊಳಪa?ದ ೊಳಪa?ದ ೊಳಪa?ದ ೊಳಪa?ದ 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ†-6 ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ 9, 12, 16 ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ 19 ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ QೇO/ೆಗOಂದ QೇO/ೆಗOಂದ QೇO/ೆಗOಂದ QೇO/ೆಗOಂದ ಎಎಎಎ-1 ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎಎಎಎ-6 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೈಟು 8ೈಟು 8ೈಟು 8ೈಟು ಬ$ೆದು/ೊಡುವಂBೆ ಬ$ೆದು/ೊಡುವಂBೆ ಬ$ೆದು/ೊಡುವಂBೆ ಬ$ೆದು/ೊಡುವಂBೆ ವರದ†"ೆಾV ವರದ†"ೆಾV ವರದ†"ೆಾV ವರದ†"ೆಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ೈYಕUಾV ೈYಕUಾV ೈYಕUಾV ೈYಕUಾV Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ _ೕaದು@ _ೕaದು@ _ೕaದು@ _ೕaದು@, /ೆಟಾV /ೆಟಾV /ೆಟಾV /ೆಟಾV ಆ/ೆಯನು5 ಆ/ೆಯನು5 ಆ/ೆಯನು5 ಆ/ೆಯನು5 ೈ ೈ ೈ ೈAiÀÄÄÝ, ಅಕಮ ಅಕಮ ಅಕಮ ಅಕಮ ಸಂಬಂಧ3ೆeಂದು ಸಂಬಂಧ3ೆeಂದು ಸಂಬಂಧ3ೆeಂದು ಸಂಬಂಧ3ೆeಂದು ಸುಳ\^ ಸುಳ\^ ಸುಳ\^ ಸುಳ\^ ಆ$ೋಪ ಆ$ೋಪ ಆ$ೋಪ ಆ$ೋಪ >ಾa >ಾa >ಾa >ಾa ಅವ>ಾನ?ದ@ಂದ ಅವ>ಾನ?ದ@ಂದ ಅವ>ಾನ?ದ@ಂದ ಅವ>ಾನ?ದ@ಂದ ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು, Bಾನು Bಾನು Bಾನು Bಾನು ಆHೕ/ಾದ M ಆHೕ/ಾದ M ಆHೕ/ಾದ M ಆHೕ/ಾದ M.. ಇದ@ M ಇದ@ M ಇದ@ M ಇದ@ M ಗಂಡ_ಂದ ಗಂಡ_ಂದ ಗಂಡ_ಂದ ಗಂಡ_ಂದ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ QೆnಾyV QೆnಾyV QೆnಾyV QೆnಾyV, 8ಾಯುವPದಂತು 8ಾಯುವPದಂತು 8ಾಯುವPದಂತು 8ಾಯುವPದಂತು ಖxತUೆಂದು ಖxತUೆಂದು ಖxತUೆಂದು ಖxತUೆಂದು Uಾಪಸು Uಾಪಸು Uಾಪಸು Uಾಪಸು ೆಂಳನ ೆಂಳನ ೆಂಳನ ೆಂಳನ 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ†-1 ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ತವರು ತವರು ತವರು ತವರು ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಬಂTದು@ ಬಂTದು@ ಬಂTದು@ ಬಂTದು@, ನಂತರವ~ ನಂತರವ~ ನಂತರವ~ ನಂತರವ~ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ:23-04-2025 ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ಎಎಎಎ-2 ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎಎಎಎ-6 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ†-1 ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ >ಾaದ@ಂದ >ಾaದ@ಂದ >ಾaದ@ಂದ >ಾaದ@ಂದ ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು, ತನ5ೇನೂ ತನ5ೇನೂ ತನ5ೇನೂ ತನ5ೇನೂ ತv)ಲM ತv)ಲM ತv)ಲM ತv)ಲM, ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ತಪP) ತಪP) ತಪP) ತಪP) >ಾaಲMUೆಂದು >ಾaಲMUೆಂದು >ಾaಲMUೆಂದು >ಾaಲMUೆಂದು `ಾಗೂ `ಾಗೂ `ಾಗೂ `ಾಗೂ Bೊಂದ$ೆ Bೊಂದ$ೆ Bೊಂದ$ೆ Bೊಂದ$ೆ /ೊಡುವ /ೊಡುವ /ೊಡುವ /ೊಡುವ ಮುಗ” ಮುಗ” ಮುಗ” ಮುಗ” ಮನ?ನ ಮನ?ನ ಮನ?ನ ಮನ?ನ Qೆ"ಾSದ Qೆ"ಾSದ Qೆ"ಾSದ Qೆ"ಾSದ ಮದುUೆ`ಾV ಮದುUೆ`ಾV ಮದುUೆ`ಾV ಮದುUೆ`ಾV /ೇವ /ೇವ /ೇವ /ೇವ /ೆಲವP /ೆಲವP /ೆಲವP /ೆಲವP Tನಗಳ\ Tನಗಳ\ Tನಗಳ\ Tನಗಳ\ >ಾತ >ಾತ >ಾತ >ಾತ ಗಂಡೊಂTೆ ಗಂಡೊಂTೆ ಗಂಡೊಂTೆ ಗಂಡೊಂTೆ Uಾಸ>ಾa/ೊಂaದು@ Uಾಸ>ಾa/ೊಂaದು@ Uಾಸ>ಾa/ೊಂaದು@ Uಾಸ>ಾa/ೊಂaದು@, ತನ5 ತನ5 ತನ5 ತನ5 ಗಂಡನು ಗಂಡನು ಗಂಡನು ಗಂಡನು ಪN5`ಾV ಪN5`ಾV ಪN5`ಾV ಪN5`ಾV ?„ೕಕಸೇ ?„ೕಕಸೇ ?„ೕಕಸೇ ?„ೕಕಸೇ ಎಎಎಎ-2 ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎಎಎಎ-6 ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ 8ೇ/ೊಂಡು 8ೇ/ೊಂಡು 8ೇ/ೊಂಡು 8ೇ/ೊಂಡು >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ೈYಕUಾV ೈYಕUಾV ೈYಕUಾV ೈYಕUಾV Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ _ೕaದು@ _ೕaದು@ _ೕaದು@ _ೕaದು@, ಇೆಲMದ@ಂ ಇೆಲMದ@ಂ ಇೆಲMದ@ಂ ಇೆಲMದ@ಂದದದದ >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV ೊಂದುQೋVದು@ ೊಂದುQೋVದು@ ೊಂದುQೋVದು@ ೊಂದುQೋVದು@, uೆ¬ uೆ¬ uೆ¬ uೆ¬ ೋ ೋ ೋ ೋ ಬ$ೆTಟು ಬ$ೆTಟು ಬ$ೆTಟು ಬ$ೆTಟು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ಆತLಹBೆ: ಆತLಹBೆ: ಆತLಹBೆ: ಆತLಹBೆ: >ಾa/ೊಂaರುವPದು >ಾa/ೊಂaರುವPದು >ಾa/ೊಂaರುವPದು >ಾa/ೊಂaರುವPದು ಕಂಡುಬಂTರುತCೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂTರುತCೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂTರುತCೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂTರುತCೆ. ಆಆಆಆ Hೕ$ೆೆ Hೕ$ೆೆ Hೕ$ೆೆ Hೕ$ೆೆ ಎಎಎಎ-1 ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎಎಎಎ-6 ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ Hೕ ನ Hೕ ನ Hೕ ನ Hೕ ನ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ 85, 80, 352 ಸಹUಾಚಕ ಸಹUಾಚಕ ಸಹUಾಚಕ ಸಹUಾಚಕ 3(5) ffff.ಎo ಎo ಎo ಎo.ಎ ಎ ಎ ಎ. -2023 ರರರರ ಅaಯ M ಅaಯ M ಅaಯ M ಅaಯ M ಆ$ೋಪUೆಸVರುವPದು ಆ$ೋಪUೆಸVರುವPದು ಆ$ೋಪUೆಸVರುವPದು ಆ$ೋಪUೆಸVರುವPದು ದೃಢಪbರುತCೆ ದೃಢಪbರುತCೆ ದೃಢಪbರುತCೆ ದೃಢಪbರುತCೆ. ಆದುದಂದ, ಎ-1 ಆ$ೋv 3ನ= ಕು>ಾ ಎ fo f. ?ದ@ಯ:, 35 ವಷX, ಎ-2 f. ?ದ@ಯ: fo Tವಂತಹ ೋರಯ:, 72 ವಷX, ಎ-3 Dೇ>ಾ /ೋಂ f. ?ದ@ಯ:, 52 ವಷX, ಎ-4 ಸಂಜ= ಕು>ಾ ಎ. fo f. ?ದ@ಯ:. 32 ವಷX, ಎ-5 ಆ. ನಂಜುಂಡಯ:, fo Tವಂಗತ ರಂಗಯ: , 71 ವಷX ಮತುC ಎ-6 ಅರುF ಕು>ಾ ಎo. fo ಆ. ನಂಜುಂಡಯ:, 38 ವಷX ರವರ 3ರುದ” ಕಲಂ 85, 80, 352 ಸಹUಾಚಕ 3(5) f.ಎo.ಎ. -2023 ರ ಅaಯ M ೋ‡ಾ$ೋಪ"ಾ ಪbಯನು5 ಘನ ಾ:`ಾಲಯ/ೆI _UೇT?/ೊಂaರುತCೆ. _Uೇದೆ, ಪಕರಣದ M ಈ ಮುಂT ನಮೂT?ರವ ಾh ಕಮಗOಾV ಕಲಂ 193(9) f.ಎo.ಎ.ಎ. -2023 ರaಯ M ತ_Œೆ ಮುಂದುವ$ೆ? ವರT ಸ Mಸಲು ಅನುಮNಾV _UೇT?/ೊಂaರುತCೆ. 1) ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ:: 80/20205 ರ Mನ 0ೈ' iೕo bೕ§ ಆಗೇ|ದು@, ಸದ 0ೈ' iೕo ಅನು5 ಎ›.ಎ.ಎ'.ೆ ಕಳ\Y? bೕ§ ಮತುC ವರT ಪuೆಯೇ/ಾVರುತCೆ. 27 2) ಸ„ತುCಪಟ ಸಂŒೆ:: 121/2025 ಮತುC 130/2025 ರ Mನ 0ೈ' iೕo ಗಳ\, Dೆ£ÉØçöʪÀÎಳ\ Qಾಗೂ Uಾ= $ೆ/ಾಡ–Xಟಳನು58ೈಬ ೕ !ಾ"ೆೆ bೕ§ /uಾ•ಾ ಎ/ಾ¤£ ೆ _ೕaದು@, ವರT ಬರೇ/ಾVೆ. ನಂತರ ಎ›.ಎ.ಎ'.ೆ ಕಳ\Yಸೇ/ಾVರುತCೆ. 3) ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ:: 80/2025 ರ Mನ uೆ¬ ೋ, ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ:: 90/2025 ರ M ಮೃBೆಯ ಬರವkೆ|ರುವ ೋ ಪPಸCಕ Qಾಗೂ ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ: : 141/2025 ರ Mನ ಸYಗಳನು5 ಬರವkೆ ತœೆ ಕಳ\Y? ವರT ಪuೆಯೇ/ಾVರುತCೆ. 4) ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ:83/2025 ರ Mನ 3¸ÁìgÁªÀ£ÀÄß ಎ› ಎ ಎ' ೆ ಕಳ\Y?ದು@, ವರT ಲಭ:UಾVರುತCೆ, ಸದ ವರTಯನು5 3/ೋ`ಾ ಆಸ)Bೆಯ Uೈದ:ೆ ಕಳ\Y? ಅಂNಮ ಅšDಾಯ ವರT ಪuೆಯೇ/ಾVರುತCೆ. 5)ಮಂದುವ$ೆದ ತ_Œಾ /ಾಲದ M ಲಭ:Uಾಗುವ ಇತ$ೆ 8ಾPÁëöårಾರ ಮತುC 8ಾ†ಾರರ 3nಾರ"ೆ >ಾa ಮುಂTನ ಕಮ /ೈೊಳ^ೇ/ಾVರುತCೆ.” (Emphasis added) The summary of the charge sheet, as reflected in Column No.17, portrays a narrative of sustained allegations of dowry demands, emotional cruelty, accusations touching upon the deceased’s character, and matrimonial discord that allegedly drove the deceased into a state of unbearable mental agony. The charge sheet further adverts to chats, telephonic conversations, witness statements, and the death note itself, all of which, according to the prosecution, constitute material sufficient to proceed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 80, 85, 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 28 13. The concerned Court, upon perusal of the final report and the accompanying material, has taken cognizance by observing that, the prosecution papers prima facie disclose the ingredients of the aforesaid offences and that sufficient grounds exist to proceed against accused Nos.1 to 6. The said order reads as follows: “Order Perused, The I.O has filed final report against accused no 1 to 6 for the offence punishable u/sec. 80, 85, 352, 3(5) of BNS. Perused the prosecution papers. Materials available on record discloses the ingredients of offence punishable u/sec..80, 85, 352, 3 (5) of BNS. Prima-facie ground to proceed against the accused no 1 to 6. Hence, by invoking Sec. 210(1) (b) of BNSS., cognizance taken for the offences punishable U/Sec: 80, 85, 352, 3(5) of BNS Register the Criminal Case against accused no 1 to 2 in Register No.III. SS to Accused no 2 to 6 Call on 30-06-2025.” It is this order of cognizance that is now called in question before this Court. The central issue, therefore, that falls for consideration is, whether the proceedings deserve to be interdicted at the 29 threshold, on the ground that the allegations do not disclose the ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 80, 85, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS. 14. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has laid considerable emphasis upon the submission that, in the absence of a specific allegation of dowry demand immediately preceding the death, the offence of dowry death under Section 80 of the BNS cannot be attracted. It is further contended that, since no offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act has been alleged, the invocation of Sections 80 and 85 of the BNS is itself misconceived. 15. The submission, though attractive at first blush, cannot be accepted at this stage of the proceedings. A conjoint reading of the complaint, the death note and the summary of the charge sheet would unmistakably disclose the existence of allegations which require adjudication upon evidence. The material collected during investigation includes several conversations and exchanges of chats between accused No.1 and the deceased, all of which cannot be brushed aside in an exercise under Section 528 of the BNSS. To do 30 so would amount to this Court embarking upon an impermissible mini-trial while exercising its inherent jurisdiction. 16. The contention that no overt act occurred “soon before the death” also does not commend acceptance at this juncture. The expression “soon before death” is not susceptible to a rigid or straitjacket interpretation. The interpretation of the words ‘soon before death’ need not retain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. 16.1. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of KANS RAJ v. STATE OF PUNJAB1, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 15. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that the statements of the deceased referred to the instances could not be termed to be cruelty or harassment by the husband soon before her death. “Soon before” is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term “soon before” is not synonymous with the term “immediately before” and is opposite of the expression “soon after” as used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These 1 (2000) 5 SCC 207 31 words would imply that the interval should not be too long between the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be “soon before death” if any other intervening circumstance showing the non-existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before such alleged treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough.” 16.2. The Apex Court, in a later judgment, in the case of SURINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA2 while again dealing with Section 304B of the IPC has held as follows: “…. …. …. 15. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 states that: “113-B.Presumption as to dowry death.— When the question is whether a person has committed 2 (2014) 4 SCC 129 32 the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.” 16. Section 304-B IPC states that: “304-B.Dowry death.—(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called ‘dowry death’, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.” 17. Thus, the words “soon before” appear in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and also in Section 304-B IPC. For the presumptions contemplated under these sections to spring into action, it is necessary to show that the cruelty or harassment was caused soon before the death. The interpretation of the words “soon before” is, therefore, important. The question is how “soon before”? This would obviously depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. It relates to the mindset of people which varies from person to person. Cruelty can be mental or it can be physical. Mental cruelty is also of different shades. It can be verbal or emotional like insulting or ridiculing or humiliating a woman. It can be giving threats of injury to her or her near and dear ones. It can be depriving her of economic resources or essential amenities of life. It can be putting restraints on her movements. It can be not allowing her to talk to the outside world. The list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Physical cruelty could be actual beating or causing pain and harm to the person of a woman. Every such instance of cruelty and related harassment has a different impact on the mind of a woman. Some instances may be so grave as to have a lasting impact on a woman. Some instances 33 which degrade her dignity may remain etched in her memory for a long time. Therefore, “soon before” is a relative term. In matters of emotions we cannot have fixed formulae. The time-lag may differ from case to case. This must be kept in mind while examining each case of dowry death. 18. In this connection we may refer to the judgment of this Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [(2000) 5 SCC 207: 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] where this Court considered the term “soon before”. The relevant observations are as under: (SCC pp. 222-23, para 15) “15. … ‘Soon before’ is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term ‘soon before’ is not synonymous with the term ‘immediately before’ and is opposite of the expression ‘soon after’ as used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These words would imply that the interval should not be too long between the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be ‘soon before death’ if any other intervening circumstance showing the non-existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before such alleged treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough.” 34 Thus, there must be a nexus between the demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment, based upon such demand and the date of death. The test of proximity will have to be applied. But, it is not a rigid test. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and calls for a pragmatic and sensitive approach of the court within the confines of law.” 16.3. Again the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. JOGENDRA AND ANOTHER3 has interpreted the phrase ‘soon before death’ and has held as follows: “…. …. …. 9. The most fundamental constituent for attracting the provisions of Section 304-B IPC is that the death of the woman must be a dowry death. The ingredients for making out an offence under Section 304-B have been reiterated in several rulings of this Court. Four prerequisites for convicting an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B are as follows: (i) that the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstance; (ii) that such a death must have occurred within a period of seven years of her marriage; (iii) that the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment at the hands of her husband, soon before her death; and (iv) that such a cruelty or harassment must have been for or related to any demand for dowry. 3 (2022) 5 SCC 401 35 10. As the word “dowry” has been defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short “the Dowry Act”), the said provision gains significance and is extracted below: “2. Definition of “dowry”.—In this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly: (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal law (Shariat) applies. Explanation-I. * * * Explanation II.—The expression “valuable security” has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” 11. In a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab [Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 225] , Section 2 of the Dowry Act has been split into six distinct parts for a better understanding of the said provision, which are as follows : (SCC p. 485, para 8) “8. A perusal of Section 2 shows that this definition can be broken into six distinct parts: (1) Dowry must first consist of any property or valuable security— the word “any” is a word of width and would, therefore, include within it property and valuable security of any kind whatsoever. (2) Such property or security can be given or even agreed to be given. The actual giving of such property or security is, therefore, not necessary. 36 (3) Such property or security can be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly. (4) Such giving or agreeing to give can again be not only by one party to a marriage to the other but also by the parents of either party or by any other person to either party to the marriage or to any other person. It will be noticed that this clause again widens the reach of the Act insofar as those guilty of committing the offence of giving or receiving dowry is concerned. (5) Such giving or agreeing to give can be at any time. It can be at, before, or at any time after the marriage. Thus, it can be many years after a marriage is solemnised. (6) Such giving or receiving must be in connection with the marriage of the parties. Obviously, the expression “in connection with” would in the context of the social evil sought to be tackled by the Dowry Prohibition Act mean “in relation with” or “relating to”.” (emphasis supplied) 12. In the light of the above provision that defines the word “dowry” and takes in its ambit any kind of property or valuable security, in our opinion, the High Court fell into an error by holding that the demand of money for construction of a house cannot be treated as a dowry demand. In Appasaheb case [Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 468] referred to in the impugned judgment [Jogendra v. State of M.P., Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2004, decided on 10-9-2008 (MP)] , this Court had held that a demand for money from the parents of the deceased woman to purchase manure would not fall within the purview of “dowry”, thereby strictly interpreting the definition of dowry. This view has, however, not been subscribed to in Rajinder Singh case [Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477: (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 225] wherein it has been held that the said decision as also the one in Vipin Jaiswal v. State of A.P. [Vipin Jaiswal v. State of A.P., (2013) 3 SCC 684 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 15] , do not state the law 37 correctly. Noting that the aforesaid decisions were distinct from four other decisions of this Court viz. Bachni Devi v. State of Haryana [Bachni Devi v. State of Haryana, (2011) 4 SCC 427 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 280] , Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab [Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 4 SCC 177 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 339] , Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana [Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (2014) 4 SCC 129 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 769] and Raminder Singh v. State of Punjab [Raminder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 12 SCC 582 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 116] , the Court opined that keeping in mind the fact that Section 304-B was inserted in IPC to combat the social evil of dowry demand that has reached alarming proportions, it cannot be argued that in case of an ambiguity in the language used in the provision, the same ought to be construed strictly as that would amount to defeating the very object of the provision. In other words, the Court leaned in favour of assigning an expansive meaning to the expression “dowry” and held thus: (Rajinder Singh case [Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477: (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 225] , SCC p. 491, para 20) “20. [Ed. : Para 20 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./16/2015 dated 6-4-2015.] Given that the statute with which we are dealing must be given a fair, pragmatic, and common sense interpretation so as to fulfil the object sought to be achieved by Parliament, we feel that the judgment in Appasaheb case [Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 468] followed by the judgment of Vipin Jaiswal [Vipin Jaiswal v. State of A.P., (2013) 3 SCC 684 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 15] do not state the law correctly. We, therefore, declare that any money or property or valuable security demanded by any of the persons mentioned in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at or before or at any time after the marriage which is reasonably connected to the death of a married woman, would necessarily be in connection with or in relation to the marriage unless, the facts of a given case clearly and unequivocally point otherwise.” (emphasis supplied) 38 13. The Latin maxim “Ut res magis valeat quam pereat” i.e. a liberal construction should be put up on written instruments, so as to uphold them, if possible, and carry into effect, the intention of the parties, sums it up. Interpretation of a provision of law that will defeat the very intention of the legislature must be shunned in favour of an interpretation that will promote the object sought to be achieved through the legislation meant to uproot a social evil like dowry demand. In this context, the word “dowry” ought to be ascribed an expansive meaning so as to encompass any demand made on a woman, whether in respect of a property or a valuable security of any nature. When dealing with cases under Section 304-B IPC, a provision legislated to act as a deterrent in the society and curb the heinous crime of dowry demands, the shift in the approach of the courts ought to be from strict to liberal, from constricted to dilated. Any rigid meaning would tend to bring to naught, the real object of the provision. Therefore, a push in the right direction is required to accomplish the task of eradicating this evil which has become deeply entrenched in our society. 14. In the facts of the instant case, we are of the opinion that the trial court has correctly interpreted the demand for money raised by the respondents on the deceased for construction of a house as falling within the definition of the word “dowry”. The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the deceased was also a party to such a demand as she had on her own asked her mother and maternal uncle to contribute to the construction of the house, must be understood in the correct perspective. It cannot be lost sight of that the respondents had been constantly tormenting the deceased and asking her to approach her family members for money to build a house and it was only on their persistence and insistence that she was compelled to ask them to contribute some amount for constructing a house. The Court must be sensitive to the social milieu from which the parties hail. The fact that the marriage of the deceased and Respondent 1 was conducted in a community marriage organisation where some couples 39 would have tied the knot goes to show that the parties were financially not so well off. This position is also borne out from the deposition of PW 1 who had stated that he used to bear the expenses of the couple. Before the marriage of the deceased also, PW 1 had stated that he used to bear her expenses and that of her mother and brother (his sister and nephew) as her father had abandoned them. In this background, the High Court fell in an error in drawing an inference that since the deceased had herself joined her husband and father-in-law, the respondents herein and asked her mother or uncle to contribute money to construct a house, such demand cannot be treated as a “dowry demand”. On the contrary, the evidence brought on record shows that the deceased was pressurised to make such a request for money to her mother and uncle. It was not a case of complicity but a case of sheer helplessness faced by the deceased in such adverse circumstances. 15. Now, coming to the second point urged by the learned counsel for the State that the High Court has overlooked the fact that Geeta Bai had been subjected to cruelty/harassment at the hands of the respondents soon before her death, which submission is strictly contested by the learned counsel for the respondents, we may note that the meaning of the expression “soon before her death” has been discussed threadbare in several judgments. In SurinderSingh [Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (2014) 4 SCC 129 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 769] , while relying on the provisions of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short “the Evidence Act”) and Section 304-B IPC, where the words “soon before her death” find mention, the following pertinent observations have been made : (SCC pp. 137-39, paras 17-18) “17. Thus, the words “soon before” appear in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and also in Section 304-B IPC. For the presumptions contemplated under these sections to spring into action, it is necessary to show that the cruelty or harassment was caused soon before the death. The interpretation of the words “soon before” is, therefore, important. The question is how “soon before”? This would obviously depend on the facts 40 and circumstances of each case. The cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. It relates to the mindset of people which varies from person to person. Cruelty can be mental or it can be physical. Mental cruelty is also of different shades. It can be verbal or emotional like insulting or ridiculing or humiliating a woman. It can be giving threats of injury to her or her near and dear ones. It can be depriving her of economic resources or essential amenities of life. It can be putting restraints on her movements. It can be not allowing her to talk to the outside world. The list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Physical cruelty could be actual beating or causing pain and harm to the person of a woman. Every such instance of cruelty and related harassment has a different impact on the mind of a woman. Some instances may be so grave as to have a lasting impact on a woman. Some instances which degrade her dignity may remain, etched in her memory for a long time. Therefore, “soon before” is a relative term. In matters of emotions we cannot have fixed formulae. The time-lag may differ from case to case. This must be kept in mind while examining each case of dowry death. 18. In this connection we may refer to the judgment of this Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207: 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] where this Court considered the term “soon before”. The relevant observations are as under: (SCC pp. 222-23, para 15) ‘15. … “Soon before” is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term “soon before” is not synonymous with the term “immediately before” and is opposite of the expression “soon after” as used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These words would imply that the interval should not be too long between the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry 41 deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be “soon before death” if any other intervening circumstance showing the non-existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before such alleged treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough.’ Thus, there must be a nexus between the demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment, based upon such demand and the date of death. The test of proximity will have to be applied. But, it is not a rigid test. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and calls for a pragmatic and sensitive approach of the court within the confines of law.” (emphasis supplied) 16. In Rajinder Singh [Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 225] , falling back on the rulings in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] , Dinesh v. State of Haryana [Dinesh v. State of Haryana, (2014) 12 SCC 532 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 839] and Sher Singh v. State of Haryana [Sher Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 3 SCC 724 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 422] , it has been emphasised that “soon before” is not synonymous to “immediately before” and the following observations have been made : (Rajinder Singh case [Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 225] , SCC p. 493, para 24) 42 “24. We endorse what has been said by these two decisions. Days or months are not what is to be seen. What must be borne in mind is that the word “soon” does not mean “immediate”. A fair and pragmatic construction keeping in mind the great social evil that has led to the enactment of Section 304- B would make it clear that the expression is a relative expression. Time-lags may differ from case to case. All that is necessary is that the demand for dowry should not be stale but should be the continuing cause for the death of the married woman under Section 304-B.” The Apex Court, in the judgments referred to supra, has consistently held that the phrase is a relative expression, the import of which must necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. “Soon before death” is not synonymous with “immediately before death.” The proximity test is to be evaluated not with mathematical precision, but with pragmatic realism. The judgment of the Apex Court in SURINDER SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA reiterates that the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act operates against the accused unless rebutted by cogent evidence. 43 17. In the light of the law declared by the Apex Court, particularly in cases arising under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC, which now find their corresponding reflection in Sections 80 and 85 of the BNS, this Court is of the considered view that the present matter does not warrant exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, to obliterate the proceedings at the threshold. The allegations, the death note, the witness statements, and the surrounding circumstances cumulatively disclose issues which can only be adjudicated upon a full-fledged trial. Consequently, I decline to exercise jurisdiction to quash the proceedings insofar as accused nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 are concerned. 18. Insofar as accused Nos.5 and 6 are concerned, they are distant relatives of accused No.1. What kind of relation did accused no.1 have with accused nos.5 and 6 is nowhere found in the entire petition nor in the complaint and the charge sheet. Therefore, accused nos.5 and 6 who only went along with accused nos.2, 3 and 4 to bring about or seek an explanation from the hands of the daughter of the de-facto complainant cannot be drawn into the web of proceedings. 44 19. The word ‘relative’ that is found in Section 304B or 498A of the IPC is, relative by blood, marriage or adoption and only a relative of the husband can be proceeded against for the aforesaid offences. The interpretation of the word ‘relative’ need not detain this Court for long. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURMIT SINGH4, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 8. Admittedly, the respondent is not the husband of the woman who died and, therefore, the question which falls for determination is as to whether he comes within the ambit of “any relative of her husband”. The expression “relative” has not been defined in IPC. The provision with which we are concerned is a penal provision which deserves strict construction. It is well settled that when the words of a statute are not defined, it has to be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense. For this purpose, it shall be permissible to refer to dictionaries to find out the general sense in which the word is understood in common parlance. In Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon (Vol. 4, 3rd Edn.), the word “relative” means any person related by blood, marriage or adoption. A large number of dictionaries give this word “relative”, in context, the same meaning. 9. It is relevant here to state that the expression “relative of the husband” has been used in Section 498-A IPC. While interpreting the said expression, this Court in U. Suvetha v. State [(2009) 6 SCC 757 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 36] held it to mean a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: (SCC p. 762, para 10) 4 (2014) 9 SCC 632 45 “10. In the absence of any statutory definition, the term ‘relative’ must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or granddaughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word ‘relative’ would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption.” 10. The expression “relative of the husband” further came up for consideration in Vijeta Gajra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 11 SCC 618 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 223] and while approving the decision of this Court in U. Suvetha [(2009) 6 SCC 757 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 36] , it was held that the word relative would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage. It is appropriate to reproduce the following passage from the said judgment: (Vijeta Gajra case [(2010) 11 SCC 618 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 223] , SCC p. 621, para 12) “12. Relying on the dictionary meaning of the word ‘relative’ and further relying on P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon (Vol. 4, 3rd Edn.), the Court went on to hold that Section 498-A IPC being a penal provision would deserve strict construction and unless a contextual meaning is required to be given to the statute, the said statute has to be construed strictly. On that behalf the Court relied on the judgment in T. Ashok Pai v. CIT [(2007) 7 SCC 162] . A reference was made to the decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of M.P. [(2007) 15 SCC 369 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 729] After quoting from various decisions of this Court, it was held that reference to the word ‘relative’ in Section 498-A IPC would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage.” 11. It is a well-known rule of construction that when the legislature uses same words in different parts of the statute, the presumption is that those words have been used in the same sense, unless displaced by the context. We do not find anything in context to deviate from the general rule of 46 interpretation. Hence, we have no manner of doubt that the word “relative of the husband” in Section 304-B IPC would mean such persons, who are related by blood, marriage or adoption. When we apply this principle the respondent herein is not related to the husband of the deceased either by blood or marriage or adoption. Hence, in our opinion, the High Court did not err in passing the impugned order [Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2006) 1 RCR (Cri) 562 (P&H)] . We hasten to add that a person, not a relative of the husband, may not be prosecuted for the offence under Section 304-B IPC but this does not mean that such a person cannot be prosecuted for any other offence viz. Section 306 IPC, in case the allegations constitute offence other than Section 304-B IPC.” (Emphasis supplied at each instance) The Apex Court holds that a person who is not a relative of the husband in terms of the definition as found in Section 304B or 498A of the IPC, which is now 80 and 85 of the BNS, cannot be proceeded against in a case of dowry death. Therefore, permitting proceedings against accused nos.5 and 6 who had no role to play in the lives of accused no.1 to 4 or the deceased or the complainant, permitting proceedings against accused nos.5 and 6 would become an abuse of the process of the law. Insofar as the allegations against the father of the deceased are concerned, it is always open to the prosecution to draw him as an accused, if the evidence so warrants, strictly in consonance with law. 47 20. Insofar as the other accused are concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings cannot be quashed against them. However, accused nos.1 to 4 are permitted to avail of such remedy as is available in law and if availed of, the observations made in the course of the order, will not come in the way, bind or influence the concerned Court in answering any such remedy that is availed of by the said accused Nos.1 to 4 and answer the same on the merit of the matter. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition No.18828 of 2025 stands dismissed. (ii) Writ Petition No.31907 of 2025 is allowed in part. (iii) The petition, insofar as accused nos.1 to 4, stands dismissed, leaving open to the said accused to avail of such remedy as is available in law, and if availed of, the concerned Court would not be influenced or bound by the observations made in the course of this order. 48 (iv) The impugned proceedings qua accused nos.5 and 6 stand quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp CT:SS