Allowed

Sri S Kiran v. State by

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2012CRL.P/1684/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and private complaints filed against them. The court allowed the petitions after both parties assured a complete settlement and indicated a desire to withdraw all mutual cases before the appropriate authorities.

What did the court decide?

Criminal case No.22477/2008 and First Information Report No.22905/2011 were quashed. Private complaints filed by each party were also quashed.

Sri S Kiran Vs State by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATEDTHIS THE 4 DAY OFJUNE 2012

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

ThE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH.. B MN

¶6

CM CRL.P No.1684/2012 CRL.R No.2689/2012

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

S/OVSUNDARARAO AGED 33 YEARS BANGALORE 47 R/AT NO.888, OPP JJ CHURCH 1 SRISKIRAN E G PURA, VIVEKNAGAR P 0 ii CHURCH ROAD,

¶9

JJ CHURCH ROAD, E G PURA, S/O LATE N VISHWANATHA RAO 2 SRIVSUNDARARAO AGED 72 YEARS BANGALORE 47 R/AT NO.888, OPP JJ CHURCH VIVEKNAGAR P 0

¶10

(By Sri. T SESHAGIRI MO, ADVs., W/O V SUNDARA MO AGED 61 YEARS 3 SMTSBHARATHI BANGALORE 47 R/AT NO.888, OPP JJ CHURCH VIVEKNAGAR P 0 ii CHURCH ROAD, E G PURA,

PETITIONERS

AND:

BANGALORE JEEVANBIMANAGAR POLICE 1 STATE BY

¶15

NO.592, 10TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, D/O G LAKSH MAN MO 2 SMTSUNITHAL BANGALORE 75 HAS 3RD STAGE, J B NAGAR,

¶16

RESPONDENTS

¶17

SRI A.G. RAVI KUMAR, ADV., FOR R2) (By Sri. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGR, FOR Ri

¶18

CR.RC., BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING SECTION ORDER DATED 26.05.2008 PASSED BY THE X ADDL C.M.M., CHARGES MADE AGAINST THEM. UNDER OF ThE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A OF THE IPC., READ WITH SECTION 34 OF SECTION 3 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND ORDERING ISSUANCE OF PROCESS TO THE PETITIONERS HEREIN TO APPEAR AND ANSWER THE PETITION BANGALORE, CRIMINAL FILED THAT ThIS HON’ BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH ThE IS 482 IN C.C. No.22477/2008 TAKING COGNIZANCE

¶19

CRL.P No.2689/2012

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

D/O G. LAKSHMANA MO AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS H.A.L 3RD STAGE, ).B. NAGARA, 1 SUNITHAL R/AT NO.592, 10TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,

¶22

¶23

BANGALORE75

¶24

2 S10 GOVINDA RAO, BANGALORE-75 AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS HAL, 3RD STAGE, JBNAGARA G. LAKSHMANA RAO R/AT NO592, 10TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,

¶25

3 H.AL, 3RD STAGE, jB.NAGARA BANGALORE-75 W/O G. LAKSHMANA RAO AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS LAKSHMI BA), R/AT NO592, 10TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,

¶26

(By Sri. A G RAVIKUMAR, ADV,)

¶27

PETITIONERS

¶28

AND:

¶29

EG. PURA, VIVEKNAGAR RO., BANGALORE560 047 AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS OPP. jJ. CHURCH, jj. CHURCH ROAD, 5/0 V. SUNDER RAO R/AT NO888, 3RD CROSS S KIRAN

¶30

RESPONDENT

¶31

MAY BY THE CC. CRLP. COMPL4INT PROCEEDINGS HON’BLE PETITIONERS THIS COURT QUASH TO PLEASED PERTMNING AGAINST THE PETTCNERS LED B THE RESPONDEN OR FOR TO THE THE FURTHER COMPI..AiNT BEARING AND THE ADVOCATE THAT FILED PRAYING No.22905/2011 BE AN LLEGED OFENCES DUNISHAELE JNDER SECTC’NS 99 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.RC.,

¶32

¶33

(MAYO HALL UNIT), BANGALORE, AND PASS ANY IN THE 500 OF IPC, NOW PENDING FOR DUE DISPOSAL BEFORE THE X ACMM, THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, INTEREST OF JUSTICE OTHER NECESSARY ORDERS THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: AND EQUITY

¶34

ORDER

¶35

in the NoJ684I2012 takes respondent in CrLP. No2689/20i2. petitioners T. Seshagiri learned counsel appearing for notice for Sri Rao, CrLP,

¶36

representing parties submit that the matter has been settled once for all. Learned both the 2. Counsel

¶37

the order sheet in 0,5. No,4624/2010 on the file of the Pri. Petitioners in CrI,P. No1684!2012 have produced City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore District, wherein it is 3.

¶38

in this regard. rdaintiff has assured to put an the the end differences to i.y withdrawino Both parties want to have a happy Ending and

¶39

¶40

Criminal view of the settlement arrived.” No.1 wants to reciprocate it by getting the Hon’ ble High Court to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.2290512011 filed by him and defendant present suit as well as the private complaint case settled defendants assure that they would move the No.22477/2008 and

¶41

on the file of the X AddI. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4. filed against each other, proceedings in C.C. No.22477/2008 AddI. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, In view of the above said observation and also settled once for all and they want to withdraw all the cases stand quashed. submission of both the counsels on record that the matter is Bangalore City and C.C. No.22905/2011 on the file of the X

¶42

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed.

¶43

Sd! jUDGZ

¶44

sma

Sri S Kiran v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Kiran v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Mangesh Mohan Kadle, Vs Shri Satish Mohan Kadle

Smt. Balavva W/O Laxman Jandekurbar Vs the Divisional Controller

Shri Nagaraj S/O Anandappa Suragihalli @ Jadhav. Vs the Managing Director

Jeevarathna Vs T M Shruthi

Smt Ambika @ Arogyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Narendra @ Naru S/O Venkatesh Vs State by Kumaraswamy Layout P.S.