AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioners have sought for quashing the investigation in Crime No. 104/2012 on the file of the respondent No. 1-Basavanawadi police station, which has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 494, 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the police could not have registered the case for the offence u/s 494 of IPC and further submits that as the allegations in the complaint do not make out any case against the petitioners, the investigation be quashed.
On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 � complainant submit that the police on completion of the investigation have submitted final report before the jurisdictional magistrate for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act Final report is not filed for the offence u/s 494 of IPC. They further submit that this petition has been filed after the final report has been filed before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. They also submitted that the papers placed u/s 173 of C.r.P.C. before the learned Magistrate clearly indicate the offences committed by these petitioners as against respondent No. 2 herein, who is the wife of first accused and daughter-in-law of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Hence, the petition does not deserve any merit for consideration, accordingly, it be dismissed. The police having filed the final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate is not seriously disputed. The offences alleged are under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. In that view of the matter, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the police could not have registered the case u/s 494 of IPC will have no bearing now as the final report has been filed for other offences excluding 494 of IPC. If according to the petitioners, there is no case made out against them, they are at liberty to approach the learned Magistrate u/s. 239 of C.R.P.C. and seek for their discharge. This Court now in exercise of its power u/s 482 of C.R.P.C. cannot quash the investigation. Therefore, I do not see any merit in this petition, hence it is dismissed.
Consequently, IA No. 1/2013 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is also dismissed.