Though this petition is listed for admission,

with the consent of the parties, it is taken up for final

disposal.

Heard Sri. B.C.Jnanayyaswami, learned counsel

for the petitioners and Sri.Harshwardhan Patil, learned

counsel for the respondents.

The present petition is filed under Section 482

of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

“II IS, THEREFORE PRAYED that this

Hon’ble High Court be pleased to QUASH the

complaint

and

all

the

consequential

proceedings before the Civil Judge & JMFC,

Sandur

in

CC

No.827/2015

in

(PCR

No.51/2015) for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 494, 420, 504, 506 R/W

Sec.149 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowery

Prohibition Act against the petitioners in the

interest of equity and natural justice.”

Brief facts of the case are as under:

- 4 -

Smt. Renuka has filed a private complaint under

Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners herein for

the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 494, 420,

504, 506 R/W section 149 of IPC and under Section3, 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

The matter was referred to the Jurisdictional Police

Under section 156(3). Thereafter, learned trial Judge

recorded the sworn statement.

Trial Court perused the material on record and took

cognizance of the aforesaid offences and registered a case

is C.C.No.827/2015 for the aforesaid offences and issued

summons. The said order is under challenge before this

Court.

In the petition, the following grounds have

been raised.

1. That there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the

petitioners have committed the alleged offences under

Sections 498A, 494, 420, 504, 506 R/W Sec 149 of IPC and

U/Sec 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

- 5 -

2. That the petitioners have been falsely implicated by the

complainant and just to harass the petitioners and to see

that, the present petitioners should not leave peacefully.

3. It is submitted that, the petitioners have been falsely

implicated by the complainant and to harass the petitioners

in all manner and respects.

4. The trial court has not taken into consideration that, the

averments in the complaint and the allegations will not

constitute commission of offence.

5. It is respectfully submitted that even if the allegations

made in the complaint are taken at their face value, they do

not prima facie constitute any offence or making out a case

against the petitioners. A reading of the complaint does not

disclose any commission of offence much less offences

alleged against the petitioners.

6. The trail court has failed to appreciate that the complaint

has been filed with the ulterior motive of harassing the

petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 and 2 are aged old persons

and suffering from age old ailments and it is very difficult to

travel from Kadur to Sandur Le, about 300 KM distance on

every Court hearing.

7. It is also most respectfully submitted that no overt acts

have been attributed to each of the petitioners. The

complaint is totally vague and uncertain. Absence of

specific allegation against each of the petitioners would

- 6 -

make the complaint no good and the proceedings are liable

to be quashed. Therefore, the continuance of the

proceedings is totally an abuse of the process of the court.

8. The trial court failed to consider the fact that, the

petitioners are living separately from accused No.1 in their

relatives house. This being the fact, the act committed by

accused No.1, the petitioners are not at all concerned with

the act committed by accused No.1.

9. The petitioners are totally innocent and they have not

committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. The

case records, circumstances and facts do not prima facie

shows the involvement of the petitioners in any manner.

10. It is submitted that while exercising inherent power of

quashing under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C it is for the High Court to

take into consideration any special features which appear in

a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in

the interest of the justice to permit a prosecution to continue

and chance