Full Judgment
Reserved on : 01.04.2026
Pronounced on : 12.06.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 745 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3124 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No. 745 OF 2025: BETWEEN: 1 . SRI H.B.CHANDRAMOHAN S/O LATE H.BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J 2 . SMT. M.S.PRABHAMANI KARISHETTY W/O H.B.CHANDRAMOHAN Location: High Court of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.10/82 1ST FLOOR, SURABHI ENCLAVE NEAR AMMA ARCH, JNANABHARATHI 2ND STAGE, MARIYAPPANAPALYA BENGALURU - 560 056. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE SPP OFFICE BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . SMT. MONIKA C., W/O MR. SHASHANK C., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: NO. 67 SRINIVASA FARM HOUSE BEHIND HOTEL AMARAVATHI SRINIVASAPURA VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA KARNATAKA - 571 404. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W., DR. M.SUNIL SASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITHA 2023, PRAYING TO STAY THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CC.NO.1699/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MANDYA FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 85, 49, 352, 351(2),
3(5), 115(2) OF BNS READ WITH 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961; CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR DATED 14.08.2024 REGISTERED ON 23.08.2024 IN CRIME NO.117 OF 2024 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 85, 49, 352, 351(2), 3(5), 115(2) OF BNS READ WITH 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961. IN CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3124 OF 2025: BETWEEN: SHASHANK C., S/O CHANDRAMOHAN H. B., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.10/82, SURABHI ENCLAVE KUVEMPU ROAD, 2ND STAGE JNANABHARATHI, BANGALORE CITY BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA - 560 056. AS PER DRIVER'S LICENSE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: 3713, GRAYTHORNE DR MIDLOTHIAN, VA 23112-4877. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHANDAN V. GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT. MONIKA C.,
W/O SHASHANK C., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS NO. 67, SRINIVAS FARM HOUSE BEHIND HOTEL AMARAVATHI SRINIVASAPURA VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W., DR. M.SUNIL SASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITHA 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION IN (CRIME NO. 0117/2024) C.C 1699/2024, PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA FOR O/P//U/S 85, 352, 351(2), 49, 115(2), 3(5) OF BNS AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT 1961. THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.04.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
Criminal Petition No.3124 of 2025 is filed by the husband and the companion petition is by the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant. Since these cases arise out of a solitary crime, they are taken up together and considered by this common order.
2. Heard Sri C.V. Nagesh, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
The petitioners are before the Court in these petitions calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.1699 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 49, 85,115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanihita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.3124 of 2025 is the husband and 2ndrespondent therein is the complainant. Petitioners in Criminal Petition No.745 of 2025 are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant. Accused No.1 and the complainant got introduced to each other and talks of marriage began to brew. Both of them were, at the relevant point of time, in the United States of America. They met in United States of America, began to know each other and the parents intervened and the marriage takes place on 29-11-2023. After the marriage, it appears, the wife and the husband began to live in United States of America, where several allegations of harassment of the husband against the wife began to surface. The wife then comes back to India. The husband also comes back to India in the year 2024 and talks of settlement or reconciliation takes place, which later leads to irretrievable squabble between the husband and the wife. This led the wife to register a complaint before the jurisdictional Police for offences punishable under Sections 85, 351(2), 352, 115(2), 3(5) and 49 of the BNS and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act alleging events that have taken place between 29-11-2023 and 15- 07-2024. The Police after investigation file a charge sheet maintaining the offences that are alleged in the crime. Filing of the charge sheet drives the petitioners to this Court in these petitions.
4. The learned senior counsel Sri C.V. Nagesh appearing for
the petitioners would vehemently contend that the overt acts that are alleged against the husband/accused No.1 have all taken place beyond the shores of this nation i.e., in the United States of America. Therefore, there is a clear bar under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C., to register a crime of events that have taken place outside the nation. Without prejudice to the said submission, the learned senior counsel submits that a personal dispute is sought to be given a colour of crime and the order of taking cognizance by the concerned Court bears no application of mind. He would submit that the complaint may be very well drafted, but does not retain the ingredients of the crime that is necessary to be present in a given case. He seeks to place an application along with certain photographs, confession letters and electronic evidence to demonstrate that the wife/complainant had multiple affairs; she has confessed of having multiple affairs. He would submit that she was always outgoing, went to clubs, dance every where and, therefore, was not a woman with whom the husband/petitioner would live. He would submit that on all these facts, the proceedings must be quashed.
5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Smt. Lakshmy
Iyengar appearing for the complainant would vehemently contend that right from the day of marriage, accused No.1 is taken care of by the complainant. He was not having any work in United States of America and every month he is to be fed from out of the funds given by the parents of the complainant. She would submit that all the instances have not happened in the United States of America. Several instances have happened within the limits of the jurisdictional police as well and with regard to the submission that the concerned Court has not applied its mind while taking cognizance, the learned senior counsel would contend that the
order of taking of cognizance upon the charge sheet need not be
detail and on that score cannot vitiate the entire proceedings.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts and link in the chain of events are
all a matter of record. The threshold issue that requires consideration is, whether there is a bar under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C/208 of the BNSS for the concerned Court to continue the proceedings for lack of sanction under the aforesaid provisions of law. Therefore, it is necessary to notice Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 208 of the BNSS. They read as follows: SECTION 188 OF THE CR.P.C.: “188. Offence committed outside India.-When an offence is committed outside India-
(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or
(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found:
Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.” SECTION 208 OF THE BNSS: “208. Offence committed outside India.-When an offence is committed outside India-
(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or
(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India,
he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found or where the offence is registered in India: Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.”
Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. and it’s corresponding provision, Section 208 of the BNSS, contemplate that an offence committed outside India by an Inidan citizen, or by any person on a ship or aircraft registered in India, may be dealt with in India as if it had been committed within the territory of India. However, an inquiry or trial in respect of such offences can be undertaken only upon obtaining the previous sanction of the Central Government.
8. The interpretation of Section 188 of BNSS need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. 8.1. The Apex Court in AJAY AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA1 has held as follows: “…. …. ….
27. Thus we hold that sanction under Section 188 is not a
condition precedent to take cognizance of the offence. If need be it could be obtained before trial begins. Conspiracy was initially hatched at Chandigarh and though itself is a completed offence, being continuing offence, even accepting appellant's case that he was at Dubai and part of conspiracy and overt acts in furtherance thereof had taken place at Dubai and partly at Chandigarh; and in consequence thereof other offences had ensued, since the offences have been committed during the continuing course of transaction culminating in cheating PNB at Chandigarh, the need to obtain sanction for various offences under proviso to Section 188 is obviated. Therefore, there is no
(1993) 3 SCC 609
need to obtain sanction from Central Government. The case may be different if the offences were committed outside India and are completed in themselves without conspiracy. Perhaps that question may be different for which we express no opinion on the facts of this case. The ratio in Fakhrulla Khan [AIR 1935 Mad 326 : 68 MLJ 415 : 1935 MWN 325] has no application to the facts in this case. Therein the accused were charged for offences under Sections 420, 419, 467 and 468 and the offences were committed in native State, Mysore. As a result the courts in British India i.e. Madras province had no jurisdiction to try the offence without prior sanction. Equally in Verghese case [AIR 1947 Mad 352 : (1947) 1 MLJ 277 : 60 MLW 233] the offences charged under Section 409IPC had also taken place outside British India. Therefore, it was held that the sanction under Section 188 was necessary. The ratio in Kailash Sharma case [1973 Cri LJ 1021 : 1972 Raj LR 112] is not good at law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
R.M. SAHAI, J. (concurring) - While agreeing with
Brother Ramaswamy, J., I propose to add a few words. Prosecution of the appellant under Section 120-B read with Sections 420 and 471 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in brief ‘IPC’) was assailed for absence of sanction under Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in brief ‘Cr PC’). Two submissions were advanced, one - that even though criminal conspiracy was itself an offence but if another offence was committed in pursuance of it outside India then sanction was necessary; second - an offence is constituted of a number of ingredients and even if one of them was committed outside the country Section 188 of the Cr PC was attracted.
29. Language of the section is plain and simple. It
operates where an offence is committed by a citizen of India outside the country. Requirements are, therefore, one - commission of an offence; second - by an Indian citizen; and third - that it should have been committed outside the country. Out of the three there is no dispute that the appellant is an Indian citizen. But so far the other two are concerned the allegations in the complaint are that the conspiracy to forge and cheat the bank was hatched by the appellant and others in India. Whether it was so or not, cannot be gone into at this stage.
30. What is the claim then? Two-fold, one the appellant
was in Dubai at the relevant time when the offence is alleged to have been committed. Second, since the bills of lading and exchange were prepared and were submitted to the Emirates National Bank at Dubai and the payment too was received at Emirates National Bank in Dubai, the alleged offence of forgery and cheating were committed outside India. Is that so? Can the offence of conspiracy or cheating or forgery on these allegations be said to have been committed outside the country? Substantive law of extra-territory in respect of criminal offences is provided for by Section 4 of the IPC and the procedure to inquire and try it is contained in Section 188Cr PC. Effect of these sections is that an offence committed by an Indian citizen outside the country is deemed to have been committed in India. Proviso to Section 188Cr PC however provides the safeguard for the NRI to guard against any unwarranted harassment by directing, “that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government”. Since the proviso begins with a non-obstante clause its observance is mandatory. But it would come into play only if the principal clause is applicable, namely, it is established that an offence as defined in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Cr PC has been committed and it has been committed outside the country.
31. What has to be examined at this stage is if the claim
of the appellant that the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 420 and Section 471 of the IPC were committed outside the country. An offence is defined in the Cr PC to mean an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. None of the offences for which the appellant has been charged has residence as one of its ingredients. The jurisdiction to inquire or try vests under Section 177 in the court in whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed. It is thus the commission of offence and not the residence of the accused which is decisive of jurisdiction. When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means such agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A of the IPC. The ingredients of the offence are agreement and not the residence.
Meeting of minds of more than two persons is the primary requirement. Even if it is assumed that the appellant was at Dubai and he entered into an agreement with his counterpart sitting in India to do an illegal act in India the offence of conspiracy came into being when agreement was reached between the two. The two minds met when talks, oral or in writing, took place in India. Therefore, the offence of conspiracy cannot be said to have been committed outside the country. In Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay [AIR 1957 SC 857: 1958 SCR 328: 1957 Cri LJ 1346] this Court while dealing with the question of jurisdiction of the courts to try an offence of cheating committed by a foreign national held that the offence of cheating took place only when representation was made by the accused sitting in Karachi to the complainant sitting in Bombay. The argument founded on corporeal presence was rejected and it was observed:
“What is, therefore, to be seen is whether there is any reason to think that a foreigner not corporeally present at the time of the commission of the offence does not fall within the range of persons punishable therefor under the Code. It appears to us that the answer must be in the negative unless there is any recognised legal principle on which such exclusion can be founded or the language of the Code compels such a construction.”
If a foreign national is amenable to jurisdiction under Section 179 of the Cr PC an NRI cannot claim that the offence shall be deemed to have been committed outside the country merely because he was not physically present.
32. Preparation of bill of lading at Dubai or payment at
Dubai were not isolated acts. They were part of chain activities between the appellant and his associates with whom he entered into agreement to cheat the bank at Chandigarh. Any isolated act or omission committed at Dubai was insufficient to constitute an offence. The illegal act of dishonestly inducing the bank at Chandigarh was committed not by preparation of bill at Dubai but its presentation in pursuance of agreement to cheat. The submission thus founded was on residence or on preparation of bills of lading or encashment at Dubai are of no consequence.
33. Nor is there any merit in the submission that
even part of the offence would attract Section 188 as the section operates when offence is committed outside India. An offence is committed when all the ingredients are satisfied. The section having used the word offence it cannot be understood as part of the offence. Section 179Cr PC empowers a court to try an offence either at a place where the offence is committed or the consequences ensue. On the allegations in the complaint the act or omissions were committed in India. In any case the consequence of conspiracy, cheating and forgery having taken place at Chandigarh the offence was not committed outside the country therefore the provisions of Section 188 Cr PC were not attracted.”
8.2. Later, the Apex Court concerning a case for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC itself, has held in NERELLA CHIRANJEEVI ARUN KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH2 as follows:- “1. This Special Leave Petition is filed against an
order passed by the High Court dismissing the application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR. The contention of the petitioner is that the alleged offences were committed in the USA and in accordance with Section 188 of the Cr.P.C., sanction from the Central Government is required even for initiation of investigation of the crime. This Court in Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P. Tr. Principal
Secretary reported in (2011) 9 SCC 527 categorically held
that previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 Cr.P.C. for offences committed by a citizen of India outside the country is not required at the stage of cognizance. However, this Court makes it clear that the trial of the criminal case cannot commence without sanction being accorded under Section 188 Cr.P.C. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3392
2. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by this
Court in Thota Venkateswarlu (supra), we do not deem it proper to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
3. Needless to mention that the petitioner is at liberty to
raise the ground pertaining to sanction before the commencement of the trial.” 8.3. The Apex Court was following an earlier judgment in the case of THOTA VENKATESWARLU v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH3, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “…. …. ….
9. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
as will appear from the complaint made by Respondent 2 to the Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh on 22-3-2007, no grounds had been made out therein to continue with the proceedings in India, having regard to the provisions of Section 188 Cr PC, which provides as follows: “188.Offence committed outside India.- When an offence is committed outside India-
(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or
(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found: Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except
(2011) 9 SCC 527 with the previous sanction of the Central Government.”
10. The learned counsel urged that Section 188 Cr PC
recognises that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, he would have to be dealt with as if such offence had been committed in any place within India at which he may be found. The learned counsel, however, laid stress on the proviso which indicates that no such offence could be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (emphasis supplied) The learned counsel submitted that in respect of an offence committed outside India, the same could not be proceeded with without the previous sanction of the Central Government and that, accordingly, even if any of the offences was allegedly committed inside India, trial in respect of the same could continue, but the trial in respect of the offences committed outside India could not be continued, without the previous sanction of the Central Government.
11. On behalf of the respondents it was urged that a part
of the alleged offences relating to the Dowry Prohibition Act did appear to have arisen in India, even at the initial stage when various articles, including large sums of cash and jewellery were given in dowry by the father of Respondent 2. It was submitted that since a part of the cause of action had arisen in India on account of the alleged offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the learned Magistrate trying the said complaint could also try the other offences alleged to have been committed outside India along with the said offences. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India [(1993) 3 SCC 609: 1993 SCC (Cri) 961], wherein it had been held that obtaining the previous sanction of the Central Government was not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of offences, since sanction could be obtained before the trial begins.
12. The question which we have been called upon
to consider in this case is: whether in respect of a series of offences arising out of the same transaction, some of which were committed within India and some outside India, such offences could be tried together, without the previous sanction of the Central Government, as envisaged in the proviso to Section 188 Cr PC?
13. From the complaint made by Respondent 2 in
the present case, it is clear that the cases relating to alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC had been committed outside India in Botswana, where the petitioner and Respondent 2 were residing. At the best it may be said that the alleged offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the criminal courts in India and could, therefore, be tried by the courts in India without having to obtain the previous sanction of the Central Government. However, we are still left with the question as to whether in cases where the offences are alleged to have been committed outside India, any previous sanction is required to be taken by the prosecuting agency, before the trial can commence?
14. The language of Section 188 Cr PC is quite clear
that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offences as if they had been committed in India. The proviso, however, indicates that such offences could be inquired into or tried only after having obtained the previous sanction of the Central Government. As mentioned hereinbefore, in Ajay Aggarwal case [(1993) 3 SCC 609: 1993 SCC (Cri) 961], it was held that sanction under Section 188 Cr PC is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of an offence and, if need be, it could be obtained before the trial begins. Even in his concurring judgment, R.M. Sahai, J., observed as follows: (SCC p. 628, para 29)
“29. Language of the section is plain and simple. It operates where an offence is committed by a citizen of India outside the country. Requirements are, therefore, one - commission of an offence; second - by an Indian citizen; and third - that it should have been committed outside the country.”
15. Although the decision in Ajay Aggarwal
case [(1993) 3 SCC 609: 1993 SCC (Cri) 961] was rendered in the background of a conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by the accused, the ratio of the decision is confined to what has been observed hereinabove in the interpretation of Section 188 Cr PC. The proviso to Section 188, which has been extracted hereinbefore, is a fetter on the powers of the investigating authority to inquire into or try any offence mentioned in the earlier part of the section, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. The fetters, however, are imposed only when the stage of trial is reached, which clearly indicates that no sanction
in terms of Section 188 is required till the commencement of the trial. It is only after the decision to try the offender in India was felt necessary that the previous sanction of the Central Government would be required before the trial could commence.
16. Accordingly, up to the stage of taking
cognizance, no previous sanction would be required from the Central Government in terms of the proviso to Section 188 Cr PC. However, the trial cannot proceed beyond the cognizance stage without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The Magistrate is, therefore, free to proceed against the accused in respect of offences having been committed in India and to complete the trial and pass judgment therein, without being inhibited by the other alleged offences for which sanction would be required.
17. It may also be indicated that the provisions of
the Penal Code have been extended to offences committed by any citizen of India in any place within and beyond India by virtue of Section 4 thereof. Accordingly, the offences committed in Botswana by an Indian citizen would also be amenable to the provisions of the Penal Code, subject to the limitation imposed under the proviso to Section 188 Cr PC.
18. Having regard to the above, while we see no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision to reject the petitioner's prayer for quashing of the proceedings in Complaint
Case No. 307 of 2007, we also make it clear that the learned Magistrate may proceed with the trial relating to the offences alleged to have been committed in India. However, in respect of the offences alleged to have been committed outside India, the learned Magistrate shall not proceed with the trial without the sanction of the Central Government as envisaged in the proviso to Section 188 Cr PC.”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance) 8.4. On a blend of the judgments quoted hereinabove, what would unmistakably emerge is that, for the allegations or instances that form the fulcrum of the complaint and those having occurred outside India, sanction under Section 188 would be taken before commencement of the trial. While taking cognizance of the offence sanction need not be placed before the concerned Court. When part offence takes place in India, the concerned Court can proceed to continue the trial for those offences which took place in India without the requirement of any sanction under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the proceedings would not get vitiated on the said ground, as it would require evidence as to where and when the instances have taken place.
9. In the teeth of the aforesaid submissions held against the petitioners, it becomes necessary to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows: “ಇಂದ: ೕಮ . ೕ ಾ W/o ೕ. ಶ ಾಂ , ಾಸ: ನಂ. 67 ೕ ಾಸ ಾ !ೌ#, !ೋ&ೆ' ಅಮ)ಾವ +ಂ,ೆ, ೕ ಾಸಪ.ರ, ಮಂಡ1 - 571 404 7ೆ' ಸಂ8ೆ1:+91 9964022222 <ೆ, 7ೆ=ೕಷ? !ೌ# ಆAೕಸB, ಮಂಡ1 ಪ Cಮ DEೕ# FಾGೆ, H,ಾ1ನಗರ ಮಂಡ1-571 401. Hಷಯ :-ವರದKGೆ Lರುಕುಳ ೕP ,ೈ+ಕ & Sಾನ ಕ +ಂ7ೆ ೕPರುವ ನನT ಪ ಶ ಾಂ . ಅUೆV, ಪ WಾಮX ಎಂ.ಎ#. Sಾವ ಎZ.[.ಚಂದ ೕಹ?ರವರ Hರುದ^ ಾನೂನು _ೕUಾ1 ಕಮ ೈ<ೋಳ`aವಂUೆ ೋ_.
cೕಲeಂಡ Hಷಯ ೆe ಸಂಬಂg ದಂUೆ ತಮiEj ಮನH ಏlೆಂದ)ೆ, ಮಂಡ1 mnೆj ಮಂಡ1 Uಾಲೂjಕು, ೕ ಾಸಪ.ರ ಾ !ೌ# ಾ oಾದ, ಚಂದ ೇಖB & ೕಮ , qಾವ ರವರ ದಂಪ ಗಳ ಎರಡlೇ ಮಗrಾದ ೕ ಾ , ಆ,ಾ lಾನು ಮದು ೆ<ೆ ದಲು USA ಯ qೆ snೆtೕ oಾದEj ತಂu,ೆv ಮತುV Paro Ai Inc ನEj ೆಲಸ Sಾಡು V,ೆv, 2022 ರ ನ ೆಂಬBನEj oಾವ.,ೋ ಮದು ೆಯ cೖ wೊ ೕಕB ಮೂಲಕ ನನTನುT wೆಂಗಳxರು y. zಾನWಾರ , ಮ_ಯಪನqಾಳ1, 2 lೇ ಹಂತ, )ಾಷ{ಕH ಕು ೆಂಪ. ರ7ೆV, ಸುರ| ಎ? ೆjೕ}, ಆB/ಎ. 10/82 ರEj ಾಸ ಾuರುವ ೕ, !ೆZ.[. ಚಂದ ೕಹ? ಮತುV ೕಮ .ಎಂ.ಎ# ಪ WಾಮX ಅವರ ಏ ೈಕ
ಪ.ತ )ಾuರುವ Shashank C, Palo Alto Networks ೕ ಯB 7ಾ•= ೇB €ೆವಲಪB ಆu ೆಲಸ SಾಡುUಾV ಮದು ೆ<ೆ ದಲು ವmೕ oಾದ •€ೊjೕ‚ಯ?ನEj ಾ ಸು Vರುವ ಶ ಾಂ .ರವ)ೊಂg<ೆ ಮದು ೆಯ ಬ<ೆƒ 2022 ರ ಅ ೊ=ೕಬB ಮಧ1ದEj ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಸಂKಪV
ಸಂವಹನ ಮತುV ಪ_ಚಯದ ನಂತರ +_ಯ 7ಾ•= ೇB ಇಂm ಯB ಆu qಾnೊ ಆ¯ÉÆÖ
lೆ†ವ ಗಳEj ೆಲಸ Sಾಡು V,ೆvೕ ೆ. lಾHಬ‡ರೂ 2022ರ ಅ ೊ=ೕಬBನ ೊlೆಯ ಾರದEj USAಯ wಾE= ೕBನEj ಪರಸˆರ ‰ದು ೊಳaಲು Wೇyoಾ ಗುUೆVೕ ೆ. ೆಬ ವ_ 2023ರ ಮಧ1ದEj lಾನು Wಾರತ ೆe ಪ oಾX ,ಾಗ, ಶ ಾಂ ಮತುV ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದ (Dೕಷಕರು) ಮದು ೆಯ
ಪ 7ಾVಪದ ಬ<ೆƒ ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬವನುT Wೇyoಾದರು. SಾZ -2023 ರ ದಲ ಾರದEj ನನT ಪ , ಅವರ Dೕಷಕರು ಮತುV
ಸಂಬಂ•ಕ)ೆಲjರೂ ಮಂಡ1 ಸುWಾಷನಗರದEjರುವ ನನT UಾŽಯ ಮlೆ<ೆ Wೇy ೕP ಮದು ೆಯ
ಪ 7ಾVಪವನುT ಎರಡು ಕುಂಟುಂಬದ ಗುರು-
ಗುರು-+_ಯರು ಅಂ ಮ<ೊ‰ ದರು.
ದರು. ಮದು ೆಯ
SಾತುಕUೆಯEj ನನT DೕಷಕರುDೕಷಕರು, ರು, ನನT ಸ!ೋದ_ €ಾ 7ೋ ಾ .ಮತುV ೕಗಳ` Wಾಗವ+ ದvರು. ು. ಅನಂ•ಕುSಾB , ೕ. ೕ. lಾಗ)ಾಜು , ೕ. ೕ. ಅಶt‘ ಎಲjರೂ ನನT ತಂ,ೆಯ ’ಕeಪˆ ಮತುV ಎZ. ಎZ. ೆ.ೆ.ಕೃಷ”<ೌಡರು. ೌಡರು. ಇದvರು. ು. SಾತುಕUೆಯ ಸಮಯದEj ನನT ಪ , ಅUೆVSಾವರವರು ಮಂಡ1ದEj H ಾಹವನುT ಅದೂv_oಾu ಮತುV ೈಭವ gಂದ Sಾಡwೇಕು, Sಾಡwೇಕು, ಮದು ೆಯ
ಸಂಪ-ಣ ೆಚCವನುT ನನT ತಂ,ೆ- ತಂ,ೆ-UಾŽ˜ೕ ಭ_ಸwೇಕು ಎಂದರು. ಎಂದರು. ನನT ಪ ಒಬ‡lೇ ಮಗlಾuದುv ಅcೕ_ ಾದEj ಉತVಮ › ಯEjರುUಾVlೆ.ೆ. ವರದKGೆಯ ರೂಪದEj ದುwಾ_ wೆnೆಯ ವಸœಗಳ`, ವಸœಗಳ`, ’ನT, ’ನT, wೆ‰a ಪ,ಾಥ ಗಳನುT ನನT ಪ , ತಮಗೂ !ಾಗೂ ಸಂಬಂ•ಕ_ಗೂ ೕಡwೇಕು, ೕಡwೇಕು, !ಾಗೂ ರೂ. ರೂ.10,00 10,00,000 ,00,000/ ,000/-(ಹತುV ಲžಗಳ`) ಲžಗಳ`) ನಗದು ರೂಪದEj ವರದKGೆoಾu ೕಡwೇ ೆಂದು ಒUಾVŽ ದ_ಂದ ನಮi ಕುಟುಂಬಸ›ರು wೇP ೆಗಳನುT ಒŸˆ ೊಂಡರು. ೊಂಡರು. lಾHಬ‡ರೂ SಾZ -2023 ರ ದಲ ಾರದEj USA <ೆ +ಂ ರುu,ೆವ. ಮತುV 7ಾSಾನ1 ೋ# ನEj ಸಂವಹನ ನ€ೆ ,ೆವ.. ,ೆವ.. ನಂತರದEj ನನT ಪ ಮತುV ಅವರ ತಂ,ೆ- ತಂ,ೆ-UಾŽ ಮದು ೆ wೆಂಗಳx_ನ ಅರಮlೆ cೖ,ಾನದEj ನ€ೆಯwೇಕು. ನ€ೆಯwೇಕು. ನನT ಅUೆV-Sಾವ lಾನು ಮದು ೆಯEj oಾವ _ೕ ಯ ಆಭರಣಗಳನುT ಧ_ಸುUೆVೕlೆ ಎಂಬುದು ಸˆಷ= ಾಗwೇ ೆಂದು ಒUಾVŽ ದರು. ದರು. ನನT ಅಭರಣಗಳನುT ನನT UಾŽ ಮತುV ಸ!ೋದ_ €ಾ. €ಾ. 7ೋ ಾ . ಅವ)ೊಂg<ೆ ಹಂ’ ೊಳawಾರದು ಎಂದು !ೇ‰ದರು. !ೇ‰ದರು. ಕ ಷ 1000 <ಾ ಂ ’ನT ಮತುV 5 ೆm wೆ‰aಯ 7ಾSಾನುಗಳನುT ೊಡwೇ ೆಂದು ಒUಾVŽ ದರು. ದರು. ನನT Dೕಷಕರು ಒŸˆ ೊಂಡರು. ೊಂಡರು. ನಂತರ ಅವ)ೆಲj ಅವ)ೆಲjರೂ ನನT Dೕಷಕ_<ೆ ’ನTದ ¡ಾ€ಾ ಪ_ಕರವನುT ೕಡುವಂUೆ ಒUಾVŽ ದರು. ದರು. ಆದ)ೆ ಅದನುT ರಸe_ಸnಾŽತು. ರಸe_ಸnಾŽತು. ಆ y=ನEj ನನ<ೆ ಮತುV ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬ ೆe Lರುಕುಳ Lರುಕುಳ ೕPದರು. ೕPದರು. ನಂತರ 2023 ರ ನ ೆಂಬB 29 ರಂದು ಮಂಡ1ದ !ೋ&ೆ' ಅಮ)ಾವ ಯEj H ಾಹವನುT lೆರ ೇ_ಸಲು ಉ,ೆvೕ ಸnಾuತುV. ನನT UಾŽ ಅಸtಸ›)ಾuದv_ಂದ lಾನು USA Žಂದ ಅವlೊಂg<ೆ ಪ oಾX ,ೆ. ,ೆ. ಮದು ೆ ಒŸˆ<ೆoಾದ ನಂತರದEj ನನT ಪ ಮತುV ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಾರ, lಾನು ಅಥ ಾ ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬವ. ಅವರ ಪ oಾಣದ g ಷ= wೇP ೆಗಳ ಪ ಾರ, ೆಚCವನುT lೋP ೊಳawೇ ಾuತುV. ನನT UಾŽ ೕಮ qಾವ !ೆZ. !ೆZ. ಅಸtಸ›)ಾuದv_ಂದ
lಾನು ಮತುV ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬ ಅತಂತ › ಯEjದವ
v .... ಆ ಸಮಯದEj ನನT ಪ ಮತುV ಅವರ
Dೕಷಕರು ತುಂwಾ ಅಸಭ1 ಾu ವ ದvರು.ು. ಮದು ೆಯ ಬ<ೆƒ wೇP ೆŽಟು= ೆŽಟು= ಜಗಳವನುT SಾಡುUಾV ನನT UಾŽಯನುT ತುಂwಾ yೕL . ನನT ಪ ಮತುV ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬವ. ಮದು ೆಯನುT ರದುv<ೊ‰ಸುವ lೆಪದEj ಅವರ ಎnಾj wೇP ೆಗ‰<ೆ ಪ ಾCUಾVಪ ಪಡುವಂUೆ ನನTನುT ಮತುV ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬವನುT ಒUಾVŽ ದರು. ದರು. ಅವರ ಭಯgಂದ lಾನು ಮತುV ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು 10 ಲž ರೂ ನಗದು ಮತುV 1000 <ಾ ಂ ’ನT ಮತುV 4 ೆ.ೆ.m wೆ‰aಯ 7ಾSಾನು 7ೇ_ದಂUೆ ಅವರ ಎnಾj wೇP ೆಗಳನುT ೕಡುವ ಬ<ೆƒ ಒŸˆ ೊಂಡವ.. ೊಂಡವ.. ನನT ಪ ಮತುV ಅವರ ತಂ,ೆ-UಾŽಯ ಆ,ೇಶದ ಪ ಾರ, ನನT Dೕಷಕರು ಮತುV ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬವ. 5 gನಗಳ ಹಬ‡ಗಳ ಾಲ ಅದೂv_ H ಾಹವನುT ಆ¢ೕm . !ೋ&ೆ' ಅಮ)ಾವ , ಮಂಡ1ದEj ಮದು ೆಯ ೆಚC 2 ೋy ೆಚC SಾP ಮದು ೆ glಾಂಕ 29/11/2023 ರಂದು Sಾಡ
nಾŽತು. ನನT ಪ ಮತುV ಅUೆV & Sಾವರವ_<ೆ ವರದKGೆoಾu 10 ಲž ರೂqಾŽಗಳನುT ನಗದು ರೂಪದEj ೕಡnಾŽತು. ಇದ ೆe ೕಗrೇ 7ಾKoಾದರು. ಅನಂ• ಕುSಾB , ೕ.lಾಗ)ಾಜು . ೕ. ಅಶt‘ . ಮತುV ಎZ. ೆ.ಕೃಷ”<ೌಡ, lಾನು ಮತುV ನನT ಸ!ೋದ_ €ಾ.7ೋ ಾ ಕೂಡ
ಇದvರು. ಆದರೂ ಸಹ ಅವರು ನನ<ೆ ಮತುV ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬ ೆe ಹಲ ಾರು nೋಪ,ೋಷಗ‰ ೆ ಮತುV ಇನೂT 7ಾಕಷು= ’ನT ಮತುV wೆ‰aಯನುT ೕPಲj ಎಂದು <ೇE SಾP, ನಮi ಕುಟುಂಬದವರನುT ಅವSಾ , ಅಗƒದ ಜನರು ಎಂದು ಂgಸು Vದvರು. ಮದು ೆಯ ನಂತರ, ನಂತರ, lಾನು ನನT ಪ ಯನುT wೆಂಗಳx_ನEjರುವ ಅವರ ತಂ,ೆಯ ಮlೆ<ೆ 7ೇ_ ೊಂ€ೆ. ೊಂ€ೆ. ಮರುgನ, ಮರುgನ, ನನT ಪ ಮತುV ಅವರ Dೕಷಕರು ನನT ಎnಾj ಆಭರಣಗಳ` ಮತುV wೆ‰aಯನುT ಸುರKತ ಾu_ಸುವ lೆಪದEj ಅವ_<ೆ ಹ7ಾVಂತ_ಸುವಂUೆ ಸೂ’ ದರು. ದರು. ಅದ)ೆ ೊಡದ ಾರಣ ಅವರು ಜಗಳ Uೆ<ೆದು ನನ<ೆ ಮತುV ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬವನುT ಕುಟುಂಬವನುT ಂg , ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬದವ)ೊಂg<ೆ
SಾತlಾP ದ _ಂದ ನನT ಮುಂgನ ಭHಷ1ದ ಅ+ತಕರ ಘಟlೆಗಳನುT ತ€ೆಯುವ ಉ,ೆvೕಶgಂದ ನನT Dೕಷಕರು ಮತುV ಸ!ೋದ_ ಎಲj ಒಡು ೆಯನುT ಒŸˆಸುವಂUೆ !ೇ‰ದ_ಂದ ಅದರಂUೆ 1]
<ೋ'¥ nಾಂ¦ ಹ)ಾ -1 ¡ೋP 2) ’ನTದ lೆLjೕ#- #-2 ¡ೋP 3] LH¢ೕnೆಗrೆx ಂg<ೆ ’ನTದ ’ನTದ ಜುSಾiಜುSಾi-1 ¡ೋP 4) ’ನTದ LH¢ೕnೆ ಮy=- ಮy=-1 ¡ೋP 5] ’ನTದ Uೋಳಬಂ•- Uೋಳಬಂ•-1 ¡ೋP 6] €ೈಮಂ§ lೆಕs#- lೆಕs#-1 ¡ೋP 7] €ೈಮಂ§ LH¢ೕnೆ- LH¢ೕnೆ-1 ¡ೋP 8] €ೈಮಂ§ _ಂ¦- _ಂ¦-1 ¡ೋP 9] ’ನTದ €ಾಬು- €ಾಬು-1 ¡ೋP 10] 10] ’ನTದ wೈತnೆ wೊಟು=- wೊಟು=-1 ¡ೋP 11] 11] ’ನTದ ಬrೆಗಳ`- ಬrೆಗಳ`-3 ¡ೋPಗಳ` 12] 12] ’ನTದ LH¢ೕnೆಗಳ`- LH¢ೕnೆಗಳ`-1 ¡ೋP ¡ೋP 13] 13] ಶ ಾಂ <ೆ ’ನTದ ಸರ- ಸರ-1 ¡ೋP 14] 14] ಶ ಾಂ <ೆ ’ನTದ ಬrೆ- ಬrೆ-1 ¡ೋP 15]
15] ಶ ಾಂ <ೆ €ೈಮಂ§ _ಂ¦- _ಂ¦-1 ¡ೋP 16] 16] )ಾ€ೋ _#= ಾZ- ಾZ-1 ¡ೋP 17] 17] ಲtB qೆjೕ†- †-1 ¡ೋP 18] 18] ಲtB wೌ'- wೌ'-1 ¡ೋP 19] 19] €ೈಮಂ§ qೆಂ€ೆಂ† ¡ೊUೆ<ೆ ಕಪ.ˆ ಮಂಗಳಸೂತ -1 ¡ೋP 20] 20] ’ನTದ ¨ಾE ©ೈ?- ©ೈ?-1 ¡ೋP 21] 21] ’ನTದ ಕಡಗಗಳ`- ಕಡಗಗಳ`-2 ¡ೋP 22] 22] ’ನTದ LH¢ೕnೆಗಳ`- LH¢ೕnೆಗಳ`-2 ¡ೋP 23] 23] €ೈಮಂ§ ಪಂ€ೆಂ&ೊಂg<ೆ ’ನTದ ಸರಪ‰- ಸರಪ‰-1 ¡ೋP 24) 24) ರೂ[2 ರೂ[2 <ೋ'¥ ©ೈ?- ©ೈ?-1 ¡ೋPಗಳನುT ೕPರುUೆVೕlೆ. lೆ. ಆ ಮದು ೆಯ ಾ¸ÉÆçÛ ÃPÀÛ ಾu ನ€ೆಯುವ ದಲು, ನನT ಪ ಮತುV ಅವರ Dೕಷಕರು
ನನT Dೕಷಕರು ತಮi ಪy=ಯ ಪ ಾರ ಎnಾj ಗೃ!ೋಪ¢ೕu ವಸುಗಳನುT ಖ_ೕgಸwೇಕು ಮತುV ಸರಕು 7ಾಗGೆ ಶುಲeವನುT ಸಹ ಭ_ಸwೇಕು ಎಂದು ಸಷ=ಪP ದvರು. ಮತುV ಹ ಮೂನT ಸ›ಳವನುT SಾE¥ೕªïì<ೆ ŸPïì SಾP ದರು. ನನT Wಾವ €ಾ.ಯಶ# ಎZ.ಆB.ರವರು ಹಣ ೕPದvರು. ಮಧುಚಂzÀæದ ಮಧ1ಂತರ ಅವ•ಯEj ನನ, ಪ Hlಾ ಾರಣ ಜಗಳ ಾP ನನTನುT ಂg ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬವನುT Lೕrಾu lೋPದನು. SಾE¥ೕªïì ಂದ wೆಂಗಳx_<ೆ +ಂ ರುಗು ಾಗ, ನನT ಪ ನನTನುT [ಟು= !ೋಗುUೆVೕlೆ. ೕನು ನT Dೕಷಕರ ಮlೆ<ೆ !ೋಗುವಂUೆ ಎಂದು wೆದ_ ದನು. ಅದ)ೆ ನನT ಪ ಮತುV ಅವರ !ೆತVವರ ಆ,ೇಶದಂUೆ, ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬವ. qಾUೆ ಗಳ`, ಮತುV ಗೃ!ೋಪ¢ೕu ವಸುVಗಳನುT ಖ_ೕg , !ೊಸ ಕುಟುಂಬವನುT qಾ ರಂ|ಸಲು USA<ೆ ಸರಕುಗಳನುT
7ಾuಸಲು ಹಣ ಸಹ qಾವ ಲು ‰ ,ಾಗ, ೆಲವ. gನಗಳ ಹ_Hನ ನಂತರ, ನನT ಪ ಮತುV ಅವರ ತಂ,ೆ-UಾŽ ನlೊTಂg<ೆ ನನT ಗಂಡ <ೆ WಾರತದEj ಾ1qಾರವನುT 7ಾ›Ÿಸಲು ನನT ತಂ,ೆಯನುT ಹಣ ೇಳ`ವ ಬ<ೆƒ ಚ’ , ನನT ಪ & ಅವರ ತಂ,ೆ-UಾŽರವರು ನನT ತಂ,ೆಯ ಬ‰
ಹಣ ೇ‰,ಾಗ ನನT ತಂ,ೆಯು ಹಣ ೊಡಲು ಒಪˆ,ೇ ಇ,ಾvಗ, ಈ HಷಯದEj ನನ<ೆ Lರುಕುಳ, ’ತ +ಂ7ೆ ೕಡು Vದvರು. ಅದರೂ ಸಹ P7ೆಂಬB 26, 2023 ರEj, lಾನು ಮತುV ನನT ಪ ಮUೆV USA<ೆ ಪ oಾXಸಲು ಧ _ !ೋ,ೆವ.. ನಂತರದEj ಅವರು ನನTನುT Lರುಕುಳ, lೋವ. ಮತುV ’ತ +ಂ7ೆ<ೆ ಒಳಪP ದರು. ಅವರು gನವ- ನlೊTಂg<ೆ ಜಗಳ ಾP, ನನ<ೆ qಾ ಣ -wೆದ_ ೆ !ಾಕು Vದvರು.
ನನT ಪ <ೆ ೆಲವ. Sಾನ ಕ ಸಮ7ೆ1ಗ‰ದvವ.... ಅವರು ಪ gನ ತಡ)ಾ ಯವ_<ೆ ಅಂದ)ೆ )ಾ 02- 02-30 _ಂದ 03- 03-00 ಗಂ&ೆಯವ_<ೆ ¡ೋ)ಾu ಶಬv ೕP HP¢ೕ <ೇ ಗಳನುT ಆಡುUಾV ನನ<ೆ ,ೆv Sಾಡಲು Uೊಂದ)ೆ ೊಡು ದ V ರ v ು. ು. ಮತುV ಅವರ Dೕಷಕರು oಾ ಾಗಲೂ ಅವರನುT wೆಂಬEಸು ದ V ರ v ು, ು, ಎnಾj ಜಗಳಗಳನುT ಪy= Sಾಡಲು ನನTನುT ಒUಾVŽ ದರು ಈ ಜಗಳದ ಸಮಯದEj ಅವನು ನನT cೕnೆ ,ೈ+ಕ ಾu ಹnೆj SಾPದನು. SಾPದನು. ಮತುV ನನT ಗತ ಾಲದ ಬ<ೆƒ Sಾತlಾಡಲು ಬಲವಂತ ಾu ೇ‰ದನು ಆದ)ೆ ಮದು ೆ<ೆ ದಲು lಾನು ಅವlೊಂg<ೆ !ೇ‰ದv ೆಲವ. ಆ? ಮತುV ಆ• €ೇಟƒಳEj ಳEj, ಅವನು ಅದರ ಬ<ೆƒ ಅನುSಾನ/ ಅನುSಾನ/H ಾದಗಳನುT ವ1ಕVಪP , ೋಪ<ೊಂಡು, ೋಪ<ೊಂಡು, ನನT +ಂgನ HಷಯವನುT Uೆ<ೆದು ೊಂಡು ನನ<ೆ ಅlೇಕ wಾ_ ಕqಾಳ ೕž & ಉ ರುಗy= ಕತುV +ಸುLದರು ಮತುV ನlೊTಂg<ೆ ತುಂwಾ ಕೂ ರ)ಾu & ತುಂwಾ ೆಟ=,ಾ ೆಟ=,ಾu ಟ=,ಾu ವ ದರು. ದರು. lಾನು ©ಾ_vÀæöåHಲjದ ಹುಡುu ಎಂದು ನನT ಮlೆಯವ_<ೆ !ೇಳ`UೆVೕlೆ ಎಂದು wೆದ_ ೆ !ಾL wಾj cೕ' Sಾಡು ದ V ನ v ು. ು. ಈತನ +ಂ7ೆ Uಾಳnಾರ,ೇ ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬದವ)ೊಂg<ೆ H©ಾರ H ಮಯ SಾP ೊಂಡು, ೊಂಡು, ನಂತರ lಾನು ಮತುV ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು ಅವರ ತಂ,ೆ- ತಂ,ೆ-UಾŽ<ೆ ದೂರ ಾX ಮೂಲಕ ಮತುV ನನT ತಂ,ೆ ಮತುV ’ಕeಪˆ ೕಗ‰<ೆ ಅlೇಕ wಾ_ !ೇ‰ದರು. !ೇ‰ದರು. oಾವ.ದಕೂe ಸtಂg ದ ಾರಣ ನನT ’ಕeಪˆ lಾಗ)ಾಜು ಮತುV ೕ ಅಶt• ಕೂಡ wೆಂಗಳx_<ೆ ನನT ಪ ಯ ತಂ,ೆ- ತಂ,ೆ-UಾŽ<ೆ ತಮi ಮಗನು ನlೊTಂg<ೆ ನ€ೆದು ೊಳ`a ರ V ುವ ಪ_ › ಮತುV ಅವ7ೆ›ಯನುT ಅಥ SಾP ೊಳaಲು ಅlೇಕ wಾ_ Wೇy ೕP !ೇ‰ದರು ಸಹ ನನT ಪ ಯನುT wೆಂಬE ದರು. ದರು. lಾನು ನನT ಮದು ೆಯನುT ಉ‰ಸುವ ಭರವ7ೆಯ Hರುದ^ ಆ ಸುUಾV, lಾನು USA ಯ ಸ›‰ೕಯ DEೕಸರನುT ತಲುಪEಲj. ನನT ಪ Wಾರತgಂದ ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದ wೆಂಬಲ,ೊಂg<ೆ ವ1ವ ತ › ಾu ನನTನುT +ಂ ಸು ದ V ರ v ು. ು. ಮತುV ಅವ)ೆಲjರೂ ನನT ಪ ಯು 8ಾಸu ಕಂಪ ಕಂಪ ಯನುT wೆಂಗಳx_ನEj Uೆ)ೆಯಲು ನನT ತಂ,ೆಯು ಬಂಡ ಾಳ ಹೂP ೊಡುವಂUೆ ಒUಾVಯ Sಾಡು ದ v ುು.. V ರ lಾನು ನನT ಪ ¢ಂg<ೆ ಅcೕ_ ಾದEj ಇದvಷು= gನ ಮlೆ wಾP<ೆ, wಾP<ೆ, ಾರು 7ಾಲ, 7ಾಲ, gನ , ಇಂಧನ, ಇಂಧನ, ಾŸಂ¦ ಮತುV ಆ?nೈ? ಖ_ೕgಗಳಂತಹ ಎnಾj ಮlೆಯ ೆಚCಗಳನುT ನನT ಸtಂತ ೈಯLVಕ ಉ‰Uಾಯದ ಹಣgಂದ ಹಣgಂದ qಾವ ಸಲು ನನ<ೆ ಒUಾVŽ ಖಚು SಾP ರುUಾVlೆ.ೆ. ನನT ಪ oಾವ.,ೇ ಖಚು ೆಚCಗಳನುT lೋP ೊಂPರುವ.gಲj. ನನT ಉ‰Uಾಯ 8ಾUೆಯEjದv ಸುSಾರು 45 _ಂದ 50 ಲžಗಳನುT ನನT ಮದು ೆ ನಂತರ gನಗಳEj ಸಂ7ಾರದ ಖಚು ೆಚCಗrಾu ೆಚC SಾPರುUೆVೕlೆ. lೆ. !ಾಗೂ ನನT ಉ‰Uಾಯದ ಹಣವನುT ನನT ಪ ಯು ವ<ಾ + ೊಂಡು ೆಲವ.
wಾ1ಂ ಗಳEj Ÿ ೆs§ €ೆqಾ † ಹೂP ಅದರ ಬP¥ಯನುT ಸಹ ಅವlೇ ತ<ೆದು ೊಂPರುUಾVlೆ.ೆ. ಈ ಾರಣgಂದ lಾನು ಸಂqಾ•ಸುವ ಹಣವlೆTnಾj !ಾಗೂ ನನT ತಂ,ೆ-
ತಂ,ೆ-UಾŽ ೊಟ= ಹಣವನುT ಸಹ ನನT ಪ Žಂದ ನಷ= SಾP ೊಂPರುUೆVೕlೆ. lೆ. lಾನು ಎnಾj ೆಲಸವನುT SಾPದರು ಸಹ ನನ<ೆ lೆಮigoಾu ಇರಲು [ಡ,ೇ Sಾನ ಕ ಾu Uೊಂದ)ೆ ನನ<ೆ H©ೆ®ೕದನ ೕP ನನTನುT [ಟು= !ೋಗುUೆVೕlೆ ಎಂದು ರಂತರ ಾu ಂg wೆದ_ ೆ !ಾL,ಾvlೆ.ೆ. " ಕe ಮುಚುC" ಮುಚುC", "ಆದುಂ ೊಂಡು ಇರು" ಇರು", " ? ಅಮi?" ಅಮi?" ಮುಂUಾದ Lೕಳ` ಪದಗ‰ಂದ ನನTನುT ಅವSಾ ಸು ದ V ರ v ು. ು. glೇ ನನT ಗಂಡನ +ಂ7ೆ ¡ಾ oಾದ_ಂದ Voಾದ_ಂದ ನನT ತಂ,ೆಯು SಾZ 3, 2024 ರಂದು ನನT ಅUೆV¢ಂg<ೆ USA <ೆ ಬಂದು ನನT ಗಂಡ ಂದ ಂದlೆ, ಂದlೆ, ಜಜ _ತ ಮತುV ಹnೆj<ೆ ಒಳ<ಾದ ಾರಣ ನಮi ಜಗಳಗಳನುT ಪ_ಹ_ಸಲು ಮತುV ನಮ<ೆ ಸಲ!ೆ ೕಡಲು ನಮ<ೆ ಸ!ಾಯ SಾPದರು. SಾPದರು. ನನT ಪ ಮತುV ಅವರ Dೕಷಕರ wೇP ೆಯಂUೆ ಎರಡೂ ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳ HSಾನ y ೆ†ಗ ೆ†ಗಳನುT ನನT ತಂ,ೆ qಾವ ,ಾv)ೆ.ೆ. ನನT ತಂ,ೆ ಮತುV ಅUೆV-Sಾವ 5lೇ SಾZ 2023 ರಂದು USA <ೆ ತಲುŸ ನ•iಬ‡ರನೂT ಸSಾ°ಾನ ಪP , |lಾT|qಾ ಯ ಬguಟು= ಒrೆaಯ _ೕ ಯEj ಸಂ7ಾರ ನ€ೆ ೊಂಡು !ೋಗುವಂUೆ ಸಲ!ೆ ೕPದರು. ೕPದರು. ನನT ಪ ಮತುV ಅವರ Dೕಷಕರು ನನT ತಂ,ೆ<ೆ ನನT ಪ ಯು ನನTನುT Ÿ ೕ ಮತುV ಾತsಲ1gಂದ ನನTನುT ©ೆlಾTu lೋP ೊಳ`aUಾV)ೆ ಎಂದು ಭರವ7ೆ ೕPದರು. ೕPದರು. ನನT ತಂ,ೆಯೂ ನನ<ೆ 7ಾಂತtನ !ೇ‰ದರು ಮತುV ನನT ಗಂಡನನುT ಚlಾTu lೋP ೋ ಎಂದು ಸಲ!ೆ ೕPದರು. ೕPದರು. ನನT ಪ , !ೆತVವರ H ಾtಸ ಮತುV ನನT ಭರವ7ೆಯ cೕ)ೆ<ೆ ನನT ತಂ,ೆ 17lೇ 17lೇ SಾZ 2024 ರಂದು Wಾರತ Wಾರತ ೆe ಮರ‰ದರು. ಮರ‰ದರು. ನಂತರದEj ನನT ಪ ಯು ಸಣ”ಪ.ಟ= ಜಗಳಗಳನುT ಆ_ ೊಳ`a ದ V ನ v ು ಉ,ಾಹರGೆ<ೆ ಅಡು<ೆ Sಾಡು ಾಗ lಾನು oಾವ.ದನೂT ಅ oಾu 7ೇHಸwಾರದು. 7ೇHಸwಾರದು. ನನT qಾಲlೆಯನುT ಅತ1ಂತ ಕ±ಣ _ೕ ಯEj ಪ Tಸು ದ V ನ v ು. ು. ಮತುV L)ಾX ಅಂಗPಯEj ’²s qಾ1 ಅನುT ಎ V ೊಳ`aವಷು= ಸಣ” Hಷಯ ಕೂe lಾನು ಅವ ಂದ ಅನುಮ ಪ€ೆಯwೇ ಾuತುV. ನನT ಗಂಡನ ಅನುಮ Žಲj,ೇ ಅಂಗPಯEj ’²s qಾ1 ಅನುT ಎ , V ಾಗ ಅವನು ನlೊTಂg<ೆ ಜಗಳ ಾPದನು. ಾPದನು. ಪ gನ ಾಲು ಮ7ಾ³,
ಮ7ಾ³, ೇ ಯ' ಮತುV ಾರ ೆe ಎರಡು wಾ_ !ೇB ಆŽ' ಮ7ಾ³ SಾP ಮುgvಸುUಾV ಅವರನುT lೋP ೊಳaಲು ಪ ಯ T ದರು ನlೊTಂg<ೆ ಸಣ” H©ಾರದEj ಜಗಳ Uೆ<ೆದು ಹnೆj Sಾಡು ದ V ನ v ು. ು. lಾನು ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬ,ೊಂg<ೆ ´ೕ?ನEj Sಾತlಾಡಲು !ೋದ)ೆ, !ೋದ)ೆ, ಸಂWಾಷGೆ
ಮುuದ ನಂತರ lಾನು ಪ HಷಯವನುT ಶ ಾಂ lೊಂg<ೆ ಹಂ’ ೊಳawೇ ಾuತುV. lಾನು
oಾವ.,ೇ Sಾ+ ಯನುT [ಟು=[ಟ=)ೆ,
[ಟು=[ಟ=)ೆ, ಅವನು ನlೊTಂg<ೆ qಾರದಶ ಕ ಾuಲj ಎಂದುಆ)ೋŸಸುUಾV ನನTನುT ದೂµ , lಾನು ಸಂ7ಾರ ನ€ೆಸಲು ನನ<ೆ 7ಾಮಥ1 Hಲj ಎಂದು +ೕoಾ‰ಸು ದ V ರ v ು. ು. ಅವರು oಾ ಾಗಲೂ ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ1ರು, ಸದಸ1ರು, ಮತುV ಸಂಬಂ•ಕರ ಬ<ೆƒ ೆ&ಾ=u Sಾತlಾಡು ದ V ರ v ು. ು. ಭHಷ1ದEj ಹಣ ಮತುV ಆ V nಾಭದ ಾರಣgಂದ ನನT WಾವನlೊTಂg<ೆ 7ೆTೕಹgಂದ ಇರುUಾVlೆಂದು ಅವನು ಸೂ’ ದನು. ದನು. ನನT ಪ ಯ Lರುಕುಳgಂದ ೆಲಸ Sಾಡಲು 7ಾಧ1 ಾಗ,ೇ ೆಲಸ ಕrೆದು ೊಂPದv_ಂದ lಾನು ರು,ೊ1ೕuoಾu,ಾvu ಂದ ನನT ತಂ,ೆ ನನT ಅc_ಕದ wಾ1ಂ 8ಾUೆ<ೆ ಪ ಂಗಳ` 2 ಲž ರೂqಾŽಗಳನುT ವ<ಾ Žಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ ನನ<ೆ ಆ‚ ಕ ಾu wೆಂಬಲ ೕPದರು. ೕPದರು. ನಮi ,ಾಂಪತ1ದEj ,ಾಂಪತ1ದEj ಒrೆaಯ gನಗಳ` ಬಹಳ ಕPc. ಕPc. lಾನು ಮlೆ ೆಲಸವನುT ಅನುಭHಸಲು qಾ ರಂ| ,ೆ ಮತುV lಾನು ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಸುತVಲೂ ಇರಲು ಬಯಸುUೆVೕlೆ. lೆ. ಆದv_ಂದ lಾನು Wಾರತ ೆe Wೇy ೕಡಲು ಧ _ ,ೆ. ,ೆ. ಆಗಲೂ ಸಹ ನನT ತಂ,ೆ ನನT ಮತುV ಅUೆVಯ HSಾನ y ೆ†ಗಳನುT qಾವ ದರು. ದರು. lಾನು ನನT ಅUೆVಯಂgರ ಂgರ ¡ೊUೆ<ೆ 2lೇ ಜುnೈ 2023 ರಂದು wೆಂಗಳx_<ೆ ತಲುŸ,ೆವ.. ತಲುŸ,ೆವ.. ನನT ತಂ,ೆ ನಮiನುT HSಾನ nಾvಣgಂದ ಕ)ೆದು ೊಂಡು !ೋದರು. !ೋದರು. ಮತುV lಾವ. ನನT ಅUೆV-SಾವರವರನುT ಅವರ wೆಂಗಳx_ನ ಾಸ ೆe ಇ‰ ,ೆvೕ ೆ.ೆ. lಾನು ನನT ತಂ,ೆ¢ಂg<ೆ ಮlೆ<ೆ !ೋ,ೆ. !ೋ,ೆ. ನನT ಅUೆVಯಂgರು 3lೇ ಜುnೈ 2023 ರಂದು ,ೇವ7ಾ›ನಗ‰<ೆ ಗ‰<ೆ Wೇy ೕPದರು ಮತುV ನನT ಪ ಆ )ಾ Wಾರತ ೆe ಬಂದರು. ಬಂದರು. ನನT Dೕಷಕರು ನನT ಪ ಮತುV ಅವರ Dೕಷಕ_<ೆ ಕ)ೆ SಾP ನಮi ಮಂಡ1ದ ಮlೆ<ೆ
Wೇy ೕP ಕುಟುಂಬ,ೊಂg<ೆ ಸtಲˆ ಸಮಯ ಕrೆಯಲು ಆ!ಾt ದರು. ನನT ಪ ಮತುV ಅವರ Dೕಷಕ)ಾದ ಅUೆV-Sಾವರವರು ಬಂದು ನನT ಎnಾj ’ಕeಪˆ ಮತುV ’ಕeಮi ಇದv)ೆ Sಾತ Wೇy ೕಡುವ.,ಾu ಮತುV ಅವ)ೆಲj)ೊಂg<ೆ ನಮi ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಸಮ7ೆ1ಗಳನುT ಚ’ ಸುUಾV)ೆ ಎಂದು ನನT
Dೕಷಕ_<ೆ ‰ ದರು. 2023 ರ ಜುnೈ 11 ರಂದು ನನT ಪ ಮತುV ನನT ಅUೆV-Sಾವ ಮಂಡ1 ೆe ಬಂದರು. ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು ಮತುV ಸಂಬಂ•ಕರ ಸಮುiಖದEj ನನT ಪ ಮತುV ಅವರ Dೕಷಕ_<ೆ ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು ಶ ಾಂ <ೆ ಮUೊVci ಸಲ!ೆ ೕPದರು. ಮತುV ನlೊTಂg<ೆ ಸಂUೋಷದ ೈ ಾ+ಕ mೕವನವನುT ನ€ೆಸುವಂUೆ Hನಂ ದರು. ನನT ಪ ಮತುV ಅವರ Dೕಷಕರು ಮರುgನ
ಚ©ೆ ಯನುT ಮುಂದುವ_ಸಲು ಬಯ ದvರು, ು, ಮರುgನ lಾವ. ಮಂಡ1 y, y, ಸುWಾಷನಗರ 2 lೇ
ಾ #ನ ಮlೆ<ೆ Wೇy ೕP,ೆvೕ ೆ.ೆ. ನನT ತಂ,ೆಯ ’ಕeಪˆlೊಂg<ೆ ನನT ಘನUೆ<ೆ oಾವ.,ೇ
<ೌರವHಲjದಂUೆ ತುಂwಾ ೆಟ=,ಾu SಾತlಾPದರು.
SಾತlಾPದರು. ಮತುV ನನT ಪ ಮತುV ಅವರ ತಂ,ೆ-ತಂ,ೆ- Uಾಯಂgರು ನನT ಪ ಇನುT ಮುಂ,ೆ ನನTನುT ತನT !ೆಂಡ oಾu tೕಕ_ಸwೇ ಾದ)ೆ ಮತುV ನನTನುT ತlೊTಂg<ೆ USA <ೆ ಕ)ೆದು ೊಂಡು !ೋu ಚlಾTu lೋP ೊಂಡು ೊಂಡು ಸಂ7ಾರ ನ€ೆಸwೇ ೆಂದ)ೆ ನನT ತಂ,ೆ 5 ೋy ರೂqಾŽಗಳನುT ೕಡwೇ ೆಂದು wೇP ೆ ಇಟ=ರು. ಇಟ=ರು. ನನT ಪ wೆಂಗಳx_ನEj 7ಾ=† ಅ² Uೆ)ೆಯಲು ಮತುV ನನT ತಂ,ೆŽಂದ ನನT qಾಲನುT ನನ<ೆ ೊಡಲು Hಫಲ ಾದ)ೆ ಮದು ೆಯನುT ಕPತ<ೊ‰ಸnಾಗುವ.ದು ಎಂದು !ೇ‰ !ೋದರು. !ೋದರು. ಜುnೈ 15, 15, 2023 ರಂದು, ರಂದು, ನನT ಪ ನನ<ೆ ಕ)ೆ SಾP ಮದು ೆಯನುT ಮುಂದುವ_ಸಲು
ಆಸLV !ೊಂgಲj ಮತುV ನನT wೇP ೆಗಳ ಪ ಾರ ಮದು ೆಯನುT ಉ‰ಸುವ ಪ 7ಾVಪ ಾu ಮi
ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು ನlೊTಂg<ೆ oಾವ.,ೇ ಸಂವಹನವನುT ನ€ೆ ಲj ಎಂದು ದರು.. ನನT ಪ
‰ ದರು ಮತುVಅUೆV-Sಾವ ನ Tಂದ ಮತುV ನನT ಕುಟುಂಬgಂದ ವರದKGೆ Uೆ<ೆದು ೊಂPದvರು ರು ಸಹ !ೆಚುCವ_ 5 ೋy ವರದKGೆ ಹಣ ಾeu ಒUಾVŽಸುUಾV, ನನ<ೆ wಾŽ<ೆ ಬಂದಂUೆ ಅ ಾ1ಚC ಾu wೈಯುv, ನನT cೕnೆ ,ೌಜ ನ1, ನ1, ಅವSಾನ, ಅವSಾನ, <ೌರವ ೆe ಅP¥ಪP , ನನ<ೆ ವರದKX Lರುಕುಳ ೕP ,ೈ+ಕ & Sಾನ ಕ +ಂ7ೆ ೕPರುವ 1] ೕ. ೕ. ಶ ಾಂ , ಎ#/ ಎ#/ಓ ಎZ. ಎZ. [.ಚಂದ ೕಹ?, ೕಹ?, 2] ೕ. ೕ.ಎZ. ಎZ.[.ಚಂದ ೕಹ? 3] ೕಮ . ಪ WಾಮX ಎಂ. ಎಂ.ಎ#. ಎ#. ರವರ Hರುದ^ ಾನೂನು _ೕUಾ1 ಕ ಮ ೈ<ೋಳ`aವಂUೆ ತಮiEj ೋ_ ೆ.” ೆ.” The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioners. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows: “17. ೇ ನ ಸಂKಪV 7ಾ)ಾಂಶ ಕಲಂ: 85, 352, 351(2), 49, 115(2), 3(5) BNS-2023 & R/W 3, 4, 6 DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961
ಮಂಡ1 ಪ Cಮ DEೕ# FಾGಾ ಸರಹgvನ ಮಂಡ1 ನಗರ ಸುWಾÄ ನಗರ 2 lೇ ಾ # ನEjರುವ 7ಾK- 7ಾK-8 ರವರ ಾಸದ ಮlೆಯEj SಾZ -2023 ರ ದಲ ಾರದEj, 7ಾK 04 ರವರ ಮಗrಾದ 7ಾK 01 ರವರನುT ಈ ,ೋÅಾ)ೋಪಣ ಪತ ದ ಾಲಂ ನಂಬB 12 ರEj ನಮೂದು SಾPರುವ ಆ)ೋŸ 02: 02: 03 ರವರ ಮಗlಾದ ಆ)ೋŸ 01 ರವ_<ೆ ಮದು ೆ SಾತುಕUೆ SಾP, SಾP, 7ಾK 01 ರವರ ತವರು ಮlೆಯವರು ಮದು ೆ SಾತುಕUೆಯ ಸಮಯದEj SಾPದv SಾತುಕUೆಯಂUೆ ಒಂದು ೆ.ೆ.m ’ನT, ’ನT, lಾಲುe ೆ.ೆ.m wೆ‰a, wೆ‰a, !ಾಗೂ 10 ಲž ರೂ ಹಣವನುT ವ)ೋಪ©ಾರ ಾu ಆ)ೋŸ- ಆ)ೋŸ-01 ರವ_<ೆ ೕP glಾಂಕ: glಾಂಕ: 29.11 29.11.2023 .11.2023 ರಂದು ೕ ಾಸಪ.ರ <ಾ ಮದ ಬ‰ ಇರುವ ಅಮ)ಾವ ಕlೆtನÆ ಕlೆt ?T?T !ಾ' ನEj 5 gವಸಗಳ ಾಲ ನ€ೆದ ಮದು ೆಯ ೆಚC ಾu ಸುSಾರು 2 ೋyಯಷು= cೕಲˆಟು= ಹಣ ಖಚು SಾP ಅದೂv_oಾu 7ಾK- 7ಾK-01 ರವರನುT ರವರನುT ಆ)ೋŸ 01 ರವ_<ೆ ೊಟು= ಮದು ೆ SಾP ೊy=ದುv ಮದು ೆ oಾದ ನಂತರ ಸಂqಾ ,ಾಯದಂUೆ ಆ)ೋA- ಆ)ೋA-01, 01, 02, 02, 03 ರವರು ಾಸ ಾuರುವ wೆಂಗಳxರು y, y, zಾನWಾರ ಮ_ಯಪˆನqಾಳ1 2 lೇ ಹಂತದEjರುವ ಸುರ[, ಸುರ[, ಎ? ೆeೖ} } ನEjರುವ ಎ# ಎ# -2 ರ ಮlೆ<ೆ 7ಾK- 7ಾK-01 ರವರು 7ಾK- 7ಾK-17 ರವ)ೊಂg<ೆ !ೋu 2 gವಸ ಇ,ಾvಗ, ಅ)ೋŸ- ಅ)ೋŸ-01, 01, 02, 02, 03 ರವರು ಮದು ೆ ಸ_oಾu SಾP ೊy=ಲj. wೇ)ೆ ಹುಡುu ಮದು ೆoಾuದv)ೆ !ೆ’Cನ ವರದKGೆ ೊಡು ದ V )v ೆಂದು ಮದು ೆ oಾದ 1-2 gವಸಗಳEj˜ೕ +ೕoಾ‰ SಾತlಾಡುUಾV, ಆ)ೋŸ- ಆ)ೋŸ-01, 01, 02, 02, 03 ರವರು 7ಾK- 7ಾK-01 ರವರು ತನT ತವರು ಮlೆŽಂದ ಧ_ ೊಂಡು ಬಂgದv & ಇತ)ೆ ’ನTದ ಒಡು ಡು ೆಗಳನುT 7ಾK- 7ಾK-17 ರ ಸಮುಖದEj 7ಾK- 7ಾK-01 ರವ_ಂದ ಪ€ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಅವರ ವಶದEjಟು= ೊಂPರುವ.ದು ದೃಢಪy=ರುತV,ೆ.ೆ.
ನಂತರದEj, ಆ)ೋA- ಆ)ೋA-01 & 7ಾK- 7ಾK-01 ರವರು ಯು. ಯು.ಎ#. ಎ#.ಎ ನEj˜ೕ ಉ,ೊ1ೕಗದEj,ದv_ಂದ 7ಾK 04 ರವರು 7ಾK- 7ಾK-01 ರವರ ಭHಷ1ದ ದೃµ=Žಂದ ಸಂ7ಾರ ೆe wೇ ಾಗುವ ಗೃಹಪ¢ೕu ಗೃಹಪ¢ೕu ವಸುVಗಳನುT ಖ_ೕ• , ಗೃಹಪ¢ೕu ವಸುVಗಳನುT ಯು. ಯು.ಎ#. ಎ#.ಎ<ೆ ಕಳ`+ ಲು" ಲು" &ಾ ?s ಫB ©ಾಜ ಖಚು SಾP, SಾP, ಯು. ಯು.ಎ#. ಎ#.ಎ.<ೆ ಕಳ`+ ದುv, 7ಾK 01 ಮತುV, ಆ)ೋŸ 01 ರವರು ಯು. ಯು.ಎ#. ಎ#.ಎ.ನEj, 7ಾ²= ೇB ಉ,ೊ1ೕಗ SಾP ೊಂಡು ಯು. ಯು.ಎ#. ಎ#.ಎ ನEj˜ೕ ಾಸ ಾu,ಾvಗ ಆ)ೋŸ- ಆ)ೋŸ-01 ರವರು ಆ)ೋA- ಆ)ೋA-02 & 03 ರವರ SಾತುಗಳನುT ೇ‰ ೊಂಡು & ಅವರ ಸಹ ಾರgಂದ ಸಂ7ಾರ ವ ಹGೆ<ೆ ಸ_oಾu ಸtಂ• ,ೇ Sಾನ ಕ ಾu & ,ೈ+ಕ +ಂ7ೆ ೕಡು ದ V v +ನTnೆ ಯEj 7ಾK- 7ಾK-1 ರವರು ಮlೆ wಾP<ೆ, wಾP<ೆ, ಾರು 7ಾಲ, 7ಾಲ, gನ ಇಂಧನ, ಇಂಧನ, ಾŸಂ¦ 7ೇ_ದಂUೆ ಸುSಾರು 40 _ಂದ 50 ಲž ಖಚು SಾP ಸಂ7ಾರ ನ€ೆ ದvರು ಸಹ ಆ)ೋŸ- ಆ)ೋŸ-1 ರವರು 7ಾK- 7ಾK-01 ರವ_<ೆ Sಾನ ಕ & ,ೈ+ಕ ಾu ರಂತರ ಾu +ಂ7ೆ ೊಟು= 7ಾK- 7ಾK-01 ರವ_<ೆ €ೈÈೕ# ೊಟು= [ಟು= !ೋಗುವ.,ಾu wೆದ_ , ಅ ಾಚ1 ಶಬvಗ‰ಂದ wೈಯು, wೈಯು, wೆದ_ ೆ !ಾಕುವ.ದು, !ಾಕುವ.ದು, ಮತುV 7ಾK- 7ಾK-1 ರವರು ತನT ತಂ,ೆ- ತಂ,ೆ-UಾŽ !ಾಗೂ 7ೆTೕ+ತರ ¡ೊUೆ Dೕ? ನEj ಮತುV Pmy' ಾ&ಾs² ಾ&ಾs² ಾ' HP¢ೕ ಾ' ನEj Sಾತlಾಡು ದ V )v ೆ ಆ)ೋŸ- ಆ)ೋŸ-1 ರವರು 7ಾK- 7ಾK-01 ರವರ ಅನುSಾನಪಟು= wೈದು ಕqಾಲ ೆe !ೊ€ೆದು, !ೊ€ೆದು, ಕ,ೈ+ಕ ಾu ಹnೆj SಾPರುವ.ದು, SಾPರುವ.ದು, 7ಾK- 7ಾK-01 ರವರ ಕೂದಲು +Pದು lೆಲದ cೕnೆ ಎrೆ,ಾP wಾuE<ೆ ೈ !ಾL qೆಟು= SಾPರುವ.ದು. SಾPರುವ.ದು. ಮತುV ಆ)ೋŸ- ಆ)ೋŸ-01 ರವರು 7ಾK- 7ಾK-01 ರವ)ೊಂg<ೆ ಸಂ7ಾರ ಸಂ7ಾರ ನ€ೆಸು ದ V v ೇrೆಯEj ಆ<ಾƒ<ೆ ಆ)ೋŸ- ಆ)ೋŸ- 02, 03 ರವರು ಯುಎ# ಎ <ೆ !ೋದ ಸಂದಭ ದEj ಆ)ೋŸಗಳ` ಸSಾನ ಉ,ೆvೕಶgಂದ 7ೇ_ ೊಂಡು ಆ)ೋA- ಆ)ೋA-01
ರವರು wೆಂಗಳx_ನEj ಒಂದು 7ಾi† ಅ² ಕಂಪ Uೆ)ೆಯಲು 5 ೋy ರೂ ಹಣವನುT 7ಾK7ಾK-01 ರವರ ತವರು ಮlೆŽಂದ ೊPಸುವಂUೆ ಆ<ಾƒ<ೆ ಒUಾVಯ SಾPಸುUಾV, ವರದKGೆ
Lರುಕುಳ ೕPದ_ಂದ 7ಾK01 7ಾK01 ರವರು Sಾನ ಕ ಾu lೊಂದು ಯು. ಯು.ಎ#. ಎ#.ಎ.ನEj,, ,, ಉ,ೊ1ೕಗ ಕrೆದು ೊಂಡು ಾಪ# Wಾರತ ೆe ಬಂgರು ವ.ದು ದೃಢಪy=ರುತV,ೆ.ೆ. glಾಂಕ: glಾಂಕ: 12.07.2024 ರಂದು 7ಾK- 7ಾK-01 ಮತುV ಆ)ೋŸ 01 ರವರ ಸಮ7ೆ1ಯನುT ಬ<ೆಹ_ಸಲು ಮಂಡ1 ಪ Cಮ DEೕ# FಾGಾ ಸರಹgvನ ಮಂಡ1 ನಗರ ಸುWಾÄ ನಗರ 2 lೇ ಾ # ನEjರುವ 7ಾK- 7ಾK-8 ರವರ ಾಸದ ಮlೆಯEj 7ಾK- 7ಾK-04, _ಂದ 11 ರವರು ಆ)ೋŸ 01 _ಂದ 03 ರವರುಗಳನುT ಕ)ೆ SಾತುಕUೆ ಮೂಲಕ ಬ<ೆಹ_ಸಲು 7ೇ_ SಾತುಕUೆ Sಾಡು , V ಾvಗ ಆ)ೋŸ- ಆ)ೋŸ-01, 02, & 03 ರವರು 7ಾK- 7ಾK-01 ರವ_<ೆ ಎಲjರೂ ಮುಂ,ೆ ಸೂrೇಮುಂ€ೆ ಮದು ೆ SಾP ೊಂಡು ೕಸ!ೋದ ೕಸ!ೋದ ೆಂದು ಅ ಾಚ1ಶಬvಗ‰ಂದ wೈದು, wೈದು, ಆ)ೋŸಗಳ` 7ಾK- 7ಾK-01 ರವರನುT ಕ)ೆದು ೊಂಡು !ೋu ಅ)ೋA- ಅ)ೋA-01 ರವ)ೊಂg<ೆ wಾrೆi SಾPಸ wೇ ಾದ)ೆ, ಾದ)ೆ, ಆ)ೋŸ- ಆ)ೋŸ-01 ರವರು wೆಂಗಳx_ನEj, ಒಂದು ¸ÁÖ† ಅ² ಕಂಪ Uೆ)ೆಯಲು ಉ,ೆvೕ ರುವ.ದು_ಂದ 5 ೋy ಹಣದ ಅವಶ1ಕUೆ ಇ,ೆ. ಇ,ೆ. 5 ೋy ಹಣವನುT ೕPದ)ೆ 7ಾK- 7ಾK-01 ರವರನುT ಕ)ೆದು ೊಂಡು !ೋಗುವ.,ಾu, !ೋಗುವ.,ಾu, ಇಲj ಾದ)ೆ 7ಾK 01 ರವರನುT ಇEj˜ೕ [ಟು= !ೋಗುವ.,ಾu ಎಂದು !ೇ‰ ಆ)ೋŸ- ಆ)ೋŸ-01, 02, 03 ರವರು ಸSಾನ ಉ,ೆvೕಶ ಇಟು= ೊಂಡು !ೆ’Cನ ವರದKGೆ ಹಣ ೆe wೇP ೆ ಇಟು= ಅEjಂದ !ೊರಟು !ೋuರುವ.ದು. !ೋuರುವ.ದು. ದೃಢಪy=ರುತV,ೆ.ೆ. !ಾಗೂ ಅ)ೋŸಗಳ` 7ಾK- 7ಾK-01 ರವರ ಕುಟುಂಬgಂದ ವರದKGೆ ರೂಪ ದEj ಪ€ೆದು ೊಂPದv ಒಂದು ೆ.ೆ.m ’ನTದEj [HHಧ [HHಧ Sಾದ_ಯ ’ನTದ ಒಡು ೆಗಳ`, ೆಗಳ`, lಾಲುe ೆ.ೆ.m wೆ‰aಯ HHಧ Sಾದ_ಯ wೆ‰a,
wೆ‰a,ಪ,ಾಥ ಗಳ` !ಾಗೂ ನಗದು 10 ಲž ರೂ ಹಣವನುT ಾಪ# ೕಡ,ೇ 7ಾK- 7ಾK-01 ರವ_<ೆ !ೆ’Cನ ವರದKX ಹಣ ಾeu wೇPŽಟು= Sಾನ ಕ ಾu &
,ೈ+ಕ ಾu Lರುಕುಳ ೕPರುವ.ದು 7ಾÊಾ°ಾರಗ‰ಂದ & ಇದುವ)ೆuನ ತ 8ೆŽಂದ ದೃಢಪy=ರುತV,ೆ.ೆ. ಆದv_ಂದ ಆ)ೋŸತರುಗಳ` cೕಲeಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ _ೕUಾ1 Êಾಹ ಅಪ)ಾಧವlೆTಸuರುUಾV)ೆಂದು ,ೋÅಾ)ೋಪಣ ಪತ ಶೃತ, ಶೃತ, ೇದlೆ Sಾ£Àå ಘನ lಾ1oಾಲಯದEj ೇg ೊಳ`aವ.ದುlೆಂದ)ೆ, ಈ ಪ ಕರಣದ ಆ)ೋA-01 ರವರು ಯು.ಎ#.ಎ ನEj ಉ,ೊ1ೕಗದEjದ_ v ಂದ glಾಂಕ 14/08/2024 _ಂದ ಆ)ೋŸ02 & 03 ರವರ ಕ€ೆŽಂದ ಆ)ೋŸ-01 ರವರನುT ಕ)ೆŽ ಅಪVಸಮnೋಚlೆ Sಾಡುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ 7ಾಕಷು= ಪ ಯತT Sಾಡnಾu ಆ)ೋA-02 & 03 ರವರು ಆ)ೋA-01
ರವರನುT ಕ)ೆŽಸುವ ಬ<ೆƒ ಸಹಕ_ಸದ ಾರಣ, ನಂತರದEj glಾಂಕ 13/08/2024 ರಂದು ಆ)ೋA-01, 02, 03 ರವರ Hrಾಸ ೆe ಕಲಂ 35 ಾj# [3] [ಎ? ಎ# ಎ# -
2023 _ೕUಾ1 lೋyೕ# ಕಳ`+ ದvರೂ tೕಕ_ ,ೇ ಾಪ# ಕಳ`+ ದ ಾರಣ, glಾಂಕ 21/09/2024 ರಂದು ಆ)ೋŸ-01 ರವ_<ೆ ಾ&ಾs² & m-cೕ' ಮು8ಾಂತರ ಕಲಂ 35 ಾj# [3] [ಎ? ಎ# ಎ# -2023 _ೕUಾ1 lೋyೕ# ಕಳ`+ ದvರೂ oಾವ.,ೇ ಪ L ˜ ೕಡದ ಾರಣ, !ಾಗೂ glಾಂಕ 21/09/2024
ರಂದು ಆ)ೋŸ-01 ರವರು ೆಲಸ Sಾಡುವ ಕಂಪ ಯ !ೆZ.ಆB.Sಾ1lೇಜB ರವ_<ೆ ಇ-cೕ' ಮು8ಾಂತರ ಾu ಪತ -ವ1ವ!ಾರ SಾPದvರೂ ಸಹ ಇದುವ)ೆHಗೂ ಸಹಕ_ಸದ ಾರಣgಂದ ಆ)ೋŸ-01 ರವರನುT, ಾನೂನುUಾiಕ ಾu ಯು.ಎ#.ಎ Žಂದ ಇಂPoಾ ೆe ಕ)ೆತರಲು Hಳಂಭ ಾಗುವ.ದು_ಂದ ಆ)ೋŸ-01 ರವರನುT ಕ)ೆŽ H©ಾರGೆ SಾP ಈ ಪ ಕರಣ ೆe ಸಂಬಂ• ದ 7ಾÊಾ°ಾರಗಳನುT & ,ಾಖnೆಗಳನುT !ಾಗೂ ಆ)ೋŸ- 01 ರವರ ಮlೆಯ ಅಸ# cಂ† ಪ ಯನುT !ೆಚುCವ_oಾu ಕಲಂ 193 ಾ # [9] [.ಎ?.ಎಸ.ಎ#-2023 _ೕUಾ1 ಸEj ೊಳaಲು ಘನ lಾ1oಾಲಯEj qಾ ಥ lೆ.”
11. A perusal at the complaint and the summary of the charge
sheet would clearly indicate that the offences against the petitioners are prima facie made out. The narration in the charge sheet can be summarised as follows: • As per the agreement made prior to the marriage of Accused No.1/husband and respondent No.2/wife, during the marriage negotiations it was agreed that respondent 2/wife’s family was to give 1 kg of gold, 4 kg of silver and 10 lakh rupees as dowry to accused No.1. • As agreed the wedding took place at Hotel Amaravati in Mandya and it cost about 2 crores which was all paid by complainant’s family. • After the marriage when complainant went to accused No.1’s house in Bangalore, within 1 - 2 days of the marriage, accused No.1 to accused No.3 took away all the gold and other ornaments which belonged to complainant and kept it in their custody. • Complainant’s father purchased household items required in USA for the petitioner/accused No.1 and the complainant and also spent the transfer charges for the same. • Accused No.1 at the instance of accused Nos. 2 and 3 physically and mentally tortured the complainant in USA. • Complainant spent about 40 - 50 lakhs including house rent, car loan, groceries, fuel, shopping etc. and maintained the family. • Accused No.1/husband threatened to divorce the complainant and leave her and scolded her with abusive words and when the accused spoke to her family and friends the accused No.1 grew suspicious and scolded the complainant and hit her on her head.
• Accused No.1 grabbed the complainant by her hair, dragged her to the ground and hit her with his hand on the door. • Accused No.1 forced the complainant and her father to give him 5 crores and to open up a company in Bangalore for accused No.1. • Accused No.1 harassed the complainant for dowry. • The complainant became mentally distressed and lost her job in USA and returned to India. • On 12-07-2024 when accused No.1 and the complainant met
with their families to resolve the disputes at Mandya in complainant’s house, accused Nos. 1 to 3 scolded the complainant with abusive words stating that she cheated accused No.1.
• Accused Nos. 1 to 3 demanded 5 crores from the complainant and her family and demanded more dowry money and left stating that they would leave the complainant if their demands were not met. • Accused Nos. 1 to 3 did not return any of complainant’s gold ornaments and jewellery and silver articles and 10 lakh cash which was received from the complainant’s family as dowry. • Since accused No.1 was in USA and on the non-cooperation of accused Nos. 2 and 3 a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNS
was issued through whatapp and gmail but the Police did not receive any response. The police on 21-09-2024 also sent a correspondence to the HR of the company in which accused No.1 works in USA through email but still accused No.1 did not cooperate, all of which is delaying the deportation of accused No.1 from USA to India.
12. Upon the said summary of the charge sheet, the concerned
Court takes cognizance of the offence. The allegation now is that the order of the concerned Court taking cognizance of the offence does not bear application of mind. The order of taking cognizance reads as follows: “Complainant Accused MWPS Vs. Shashank.C & Others Dt: 24-10-2024 The PSI of Mandya West I.O. of Mandya West Police
Police Station has filed the Station has filed the charge charge sheet against the sheet against the accused No.1 accused for the offence to 3 for the offence punishable punishable under Section 85, U/section 85, 352, 351(2), 49, 352, 351(2), 49, 115(2), 3(5) of 115(2), 3(5) of BNS and u/s 3, 4 BNS and u/s 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Prohibition Act. Copy of charge sheet is furnished along with Perused the final report. original FIR. Complaint & PF Cognizance taken against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/sec.85, 352, 351(2), 49, 115(2), 3(5) of BNS and U/s 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. There is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Hence, office is directed to register the case against accused No.1 to 3 for the aforesaid offences in Register No.III and issue summons to accused for the aforesaid offences, r/by 17.12.2024.” Sd/- Prl.Sr.Civil Judge & CJM Mandya.” (Emphasis added at each instance) Though the order taking of cognizance is not happily worded, that would not mean that it would vitiate the entire proceedings nor the
order of taking cognizance is to be obliterated on the score that it is
not a reasoned order. While considering this very issue, a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court, in the case of PRADEEP S. WODEYAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA4 held as follows: “…. …. ….
88. Similarly, the cognizance order in Fakhruddin Ahmad [Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal,
(2008) 17 SCC 157: (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 478] was based
on a police report. However, this Court remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the validity of the cognizance order and did not review the Magistrate's satisfaction before issuing the cognizance order. Therefore, none of the above judgments referred to support the contention of the appellant. Though all the (2021)19 SCC 62
above judgments mention that the Magistrate needs to apply his mind to the materials placed before him before
taking cognizance, they have been differentiated on facts
from the present case as unlike the present case where cognizance was taken based on the SIT report, in those cases cognizance was taken based on a complaint. The difference in the standard of proof for application of mind with reference to cognizance based on a complaint and police report has been briefly discussed in Mehmood Ul Rehman [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420: (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124] and Fakhruddin Ahmad [Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 17 SCC 157: (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 478]. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Afroz Mohammed
Hasanfatta [State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539: (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 876] laid down the law on the difference of the standard of review of the application of mind by the Judge while taking cognizance based on a police report and a private complaint. … … …
91. While distinguishing the decision in Pepsi Foods
Ltd. [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] on the ground that it related to taking of cognizance in a complaint case, the Court in Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta case [State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539 : (2020) 3 SCC
(Cri) 876] held since in a case of cognizance based on a
police report, the Magistrate has the advantage of perusing the materials, he is not required to record reasons : (Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta case [State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539 :
(2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 876] , SCC p. 552, para 23)
“23. Insofar as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge-sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the rules of investigation.
Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the investigating officer and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge-sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with the materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190(1)(b)Cr PC, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge-sheet and for not taking it on file.”
(emphasis supplied)
92. The Special Judge, it must be noted, took cognizance on the basis of a report submitted under Section 173Cr PC and not on the basis of a private complaint. Therefore, the case is squarely covered by the decision in Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta [State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539 :
(2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 876] . The Special Judge took note of the
FIR, the witness statements, and connected documents before taking cognizance of the offence. In this backdrop, it would be far-fetched to fault the order of the Special Judge on the ground that it does not adduce detailed reasons for taking cognizance or that it does not indicate an application of mind. In the facts of this case, therefore, the order taking cognizance is not erroneous. … … …
D. The conclusion
108. In view of the discussion above, we summarise our findings below:
… … … 108.8. Since cognizance was taken by the Special Judge based on a police report and not a private complaint, it is not obligatory for the Special Judge to issue a fully reasoned order if it otherwise appears that the Special Judge has applied his mind to the material.” 12.1. Subsequently, the Apex Court in PRAMILA DEVI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND5 while considering a similar issue, has
held as follows:
“…. …. ….
19. Perusal of the entire gamut of the pleadings of
the Appellants does not disclose any categorical statement to the effect that during investigation by the police, no evidence has emerged to warrant taking of cognizance, much less against the Appellants. The only averment which has been made is that the Trial Court had not recorded the prima facie material against the Appellants because it does not exist. This is too simplistic an argument and does not shift the burden from the Appellants of taking a categorical stand that no material whatsoever for taking cognizance is available in the police papers/case diary against the Appellants. Be it noted, the State has argued that sufficient material
2025 SCC OnLine SC 886 warranting cognizance has been unearthed during the course of investigation.
20. Here, the Court would pause to delve on what is
the scope of the exercise of application of mind on the police papers/case diary for deciding as to whether to take cognizance or not - it has only to be seen whether there is material forthcoming to indicate commission of the offence(s) alleged. The concerned Court is not empowered to go into the veracity of the material at that time. That is why, the law provides for a trial where it is open to both the parties i.e., the prosecution as well as the defence to lead evidence(s) either to prove the materials which have come against the accused or to disprove such findings. This Court vide Order dated 13.09.2024 directed the Appellants to file a translated copy of the chargesheet, as the State filed the chargesheet in Hindi along with an application seeking exemption from filing official translation (I.A. No. and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.] is well-conversant with Hindi, the language in which the chargesheet is and which has been brought on record, we have examined the same. However, the Appellants failed to comply with the specific direction issued on 13.09.2024. Be that as it may, we find that chargesheet mentions that on the basis of investigation, site inspection and statements of the complainant, the police has found the allegations true against all the accused including appellants.
21. For reasons aforesaid and on an overall circumspection of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we find that the
Order taking cognizance dated 13.06.2019, being in accordance
with law, was not required to be interfered with by the High Court.” (Emphasis supplied at each instance) 12.2. In the light of the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex
Court, the submission of the learned senior counsel that the order
of taking of cognizance suffers from non-application of mind and should be obliterated, is rejected. In the light of the complaint and the charge sheet making out a prima facie case, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in the further proceedings.
13. Finding no merit in these petitions, the petitions stand
rejected. Interim order of any kind operating, shall stand dissolved. 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 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings pending against them. Consequently, pending applications if any, also stand disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp/CT:SS