Untitled
Untitled
Untitled
BEFORE
BETWEEN:
AND:
1. THE STATE BY
PULIKESHI NAGAR POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001.
ALSO AT:
HOUSE No.7, 2ND FLOOR
ACHUTHARAYA MUDALIAR ROAD
FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA-560005.
… RESPONDENTS
ORDER
354(D), 506, 376, 447, 354 of IPC read with Section 66C and
for short) and direct the Investigating Officer not to take any
her mouth and forcibly committed rape on her and spilled the
thereafter he called the house owner and he did not help her.
taken screenshots from her new iphone as she could get data of
evidences prove that the main accused No.1 and her husband
act. They have always been hand in glove with each other. This
accused No.2 had sent accused No.1 to take her personal phone,
robbed her old passport which had address of her marital house,
filed.
petitioner and handed over the mobile to him and there was no
eye to the fact that the petitioner had produced the mobile on
the phone in a court of law and had always been ready and
and abandoned the petitioner almost three years ago and the
the ingredients of section 66E of the IT Act, 2000 are not made
7
No such things have taken place in the present case and the
upon the order of the Apex Court in the case of Ankur Gupta v.
upon the order of the Apex Court in the case of Khatri and
entitled to call for the case diary or to look at it, save for a
hold that the case diary is totally protected from disclosure and
it in a civil proceeding.
the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.23 and 24, with regard to,
accused.
demand of dowry.
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ahmad Ali
notice of this Court paragraph Nos.23 and 24, wherein, the Apex
SCC 335, come to the rescue of the accused and the criminal
disputing the fact that he has received the mobile belongs to the
Court.
is very clear that he had handed over the mobile belongs to the
available and when the petitioner has made use of the mobile
the phone was handed over to the husband by accused No.1 and
with regard to scope of Section 65B of the Evidence Act and also
not in dispute that the marriage was taken place in the year
were having four children and those four children were also
the petitioner that the respondent No.2 left the Mumbai in the
by accused No.1 and also the petitioner not disputing the fact
that accused No.1 called him and handed over the same to him.
It is also not in dispute that he has received the same and taken
out the pictures and produced the same before the Court since
also this petitioner has filed divorce petition before the Family
Court at Mumbai.
disputing the fact that he has handed over the same to the
Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced some
No.2.
hand, it is not made as available for public but the fact that the
use of the password and taking out the print from the mobile
that both accused Nos.1 and 2 are hand in glove with each other
17
and unearth the crime as held by the Apex Court in the case of
challenge to FIR. In this judgment the Apex Court has held that
from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is more so, when
the Court finds that FIR does disclose prima facie commission of
any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the
the Cr.P.C.
for the petitioner, the offences which have been invoked do not
66E of the IT Act, 2000, prima facie attract against the petitioner
herein. I have already pointed out that the petitioner also not
Kerala High Court also in the judgment referred supra held that
have been taken with regard to the private area i.e., naked or
19
of the IT Act, 2000. When such being the case and when the
same has been made use of evidence before the Court of law, I
Cr.P.C.
following:
ORDER
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cp*