Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/6630/2019 of SMT SOWMYA S O Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 17 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010290312019 NC: 2026:KHC:50790 CRL.P No. 6630 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6630 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SOWMYA S.O., W/O DR. RAVIKUMAR S., AGED ABOUT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6630 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. SOWMYA S.O.,
W/O DR. RAVIKUMAR S.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1946/03, 5TH MAIN,
15TH CROSS, VIDYANAGAR,
DAVANAGERE-577002.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. PAVANA B.K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE WOMEN POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2.
DR. RAVI KUAMR S.,
S/O B. SURENDAR NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT GURUKRUPA 1ST STAGE,
4TH CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD,
VINOBHA NAGAR,
DAVANAGERE-577002.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2019
IN S.C.NO.100/2014 (PAGE NO.11) ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT
AND
SESSIONS
JUDGE
AT
DAVANAGERE, IN SO FAR AS REJECTING THE APPLICATION
FOR RECEIVING THE OTHER DOCUMENTS AND STATEMENT IN
EVIDENCE AS SET OUT IN PF NO.3/2018 OF SUPPLEMENTARY
CHARGE SHEET DATED 31.01.2018.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Having perused the order passed by the Trial Court, the Trial Court allowed the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in part taking note of the fact that the case was filed in 2014 and an application was filed in 2018 for production of additional documents. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the documents which are sought to be produced by the Investigating Officer i.e., order passed by the Family Court as well as the anticipatory bail order are not necessary documents for this case. With respect to the production of documents i.e.,
HC-KAR
photographs which were taken at the time of engagement and marriage are necessary for the case and the same were permitted. The rejection order is in respect of the order passed by the Family Court as well as the anticipatory bail order. The Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that the order of the anticipatory bail as well as the order passed by the Family Court are not necessary to decide the issue involved between the parties, since the offences invoked against the petitioner is for the offences under Sections 498A, 313 and 506 of IPC. In order to consider the offence under Sections 498A, 313 and 506 of IPC, the order of the Family Court as well as the order of anticipatory bail are not relevant and hence, I do not find any grounds to entertain this petition.
3. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28