IN THE HIGH COUIT OF KAINATAKA CI IZCUIT BENCH AT DHAR.WAD DATED TillS TIlE )Qc DAY OP JULY. 2011 BEPORE TIlE I-ION ‘I3LE MR.JUSTICE B.V. PINTO cNQ!kOSJ2Q1 Between: 1. Raghavendra S/o. Shvarnsunder Raikar, Age: 30. 0cc: Private Service. 2. Shvarnsunder S/o. Naravan Raikar. Age: 55 sears. 3. Shobha W/o. Sh\ amsunder Raikar, Age: 50 cars, R/o # No. 1 3. Silver Tower, Gokul Road, Hubli. PETITIONERS (By Sri.B.V.Sornapur, Advocate) And: 1. Smt. Rukrnini W/o. Raghavencira Raikar. Age: 27. 0cc: Household, R/o. C/o. Annappa \‘asudev Palankar. Shukravarpeth. Dharwad. 2. The State of IKarnataka Rep. B\ State Public Prosecutor. Circuit Bench. Dharwad. RESPONDENTS (By Sri.Vinavak S. Kulkarni, Advocate) ) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that the charge sheet submitted h5 the Mahila Police, Hubli Dhan ad and initiation of proceedings against these petitioners in C.C.No.178:20l I pending on the file of 1st AddI. JMFC.. Dhanad for the offences P/U, S 49b A. 323. 504 and SOb etc.. This petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri. B.V.Somapur. learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. V.S.Kulkarni. learned KCGP., for the State. 2. On the basis of complaint filed by Smt. Rukmini before the Mahila Police. Hubli-Dhanvad, the case in Crime No.39/2010 for offences punishable under Sections 4Q8A. 323. 504 and 506 nw 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is registered on 21.10.2010. 3. In the said complaint it is stated that the marriage of the complainant was celebrated ‘ith accused No.1 on 23.1.2007 and at the time of marriage Accused No.1 has taken Gold weighing 480 Grams.. also the jewels to her and paving Rs.35.000/ - as dowry. Rs. 10.000/ - towards suit and Rs. 1.50,000/- was spent for the marriage. It is further stated a — 3 in the complaint that hen she ivent to live ith her husband i.e. Raghavendra. her mother in law Shobha and her father in lai Shyamsunder were li ing together and for a iew months they ere happil3 Ift ing. Thereafter when she became pregnant, her husband, mother in law and father in lat mId her that if she wants to go to her parents house for delivcr3 she should bring 250 Grams gold. one Scarpio Car, one site and Rs.50.000/ as dowr3 and also gave her physical and mental harassment. Hence. she informed the same to her parents. When her parents came to call her for delivery, the petitioners did not permit them to come inside their house. It is further stated in complaint that the accused have not given the food to her and she was abused by vulgar words and she was assaulted by the accused and she ‘as not allou ed to telephone to her parents. 4. When she was about to deliver she was taken to Ganapathi Temple at Hubli on 26.3.2009 at about 10.30 am and abandoned. Thereafter she phoned up to her parents and her brother came and took her. Then her father-in-law came to the house and he took a signature of her father, mother 4 and brother on a bond paper and took gold ornaments from her b5 leasing onb Mangala Sutra on 22.4.200C’. When she delivered a bab3. the said bub3 as dead. Though she had infonnecl the facts to her husband and her mother in law. they have not come to see the child. She has stated that due to ill treatment and harassment and also demand for money. she was subjected to physical and mental cruelt3 as a result of which the child in her stomach has died on 10.10.20 10 at about 11.00 a.m. When she was in her parents house, all the accused-petitioners came and asked for the additional dowry of 250 grams of gold. one Scarpio Car. one site and also the cash of Rs.50.000 ‘- and abused her that she is staying in her parents house without bringing the articles and also quarreled with her. Hence she has prayed for action. 5. The police have conducted the investigation and have filed the charge sheet citing sixteen witnesses. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking to quash the proceedings. 6. On careful consideration of the materials on record, the averments in the complaint and charge sheet. constituted the olTences of harassmrnt. ill trt€ttment and demand of do%r3 and hence. there is no merit in this petition. The petition is dismissed. Sd! JUDGE BS