Allowed

R Shrinivasareddi v. Smt. Anusha

Karnataka HC7 Oct 2016CRL.P/2207/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition to quash pending proceedings against the petitioners. The cases arose from marital discord and allegations of cruelty, but parties had reached a mutual consent divorce settlement. Relying on Gian Singh, the court quashed the proceedings to enable parties to live in amity.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings pending in C.C.No.22259/2012 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, stand quashed.

R Shrinivasareddi Vs Smt. Anusha — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2207 OF 2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

R. Shrinivasareddi, Son of Govindappa, Aged about 53 years, Working in KSRTC, Thuruvanuru, Chitradurga Taluk, Chitradurga District. PIN CODE 577 517.

¶9

Pushpavathi, Wife of R. Shrinivasareddi, Aged about 43 years, Thuruvanuru, Chitradurga Taluk, Chitradurga District, PIN CODE 577 517.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(By Shri C.N.Raju, Advocate)

¶12

¶13

AND:

¶14

Smt. Anusha, Wife of Ranganatha Reddy, Aged about 22 years, Residing at No.43, Sri Ranganath Swamy Nilaya, Krishnaiah Layout Ittamadu, Bangalore City, Bangalore 560 052.

¶15

State by Channammanakere Achukattu Police, Bangalore, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(By Shri Uday Urs., Advocate for Respondent No.1; Shri Chetan Desai, Government Pleader for Respondent No.2)

¶17

¶18

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the charge sheet filed against the petitioners pending on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bangalore, in C.C.No.22259/2012 in Crime No.345/2011 of Channammanakere Achukattu Police Station, Bangalore city by allowing this petition.

¶19

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:

¶20

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Shri Uday Urs enters appearance for the first respondent.

¶23

It transpires that the son of the petitioners was married

¶24

to the complainant - first respondent. There was marital discord between the respondent and the son of the petitioners. Consequently, they had been living separately. The son of the petitioners had filed a petition for divorce, which was pending. In the meanwhile, the respondent had instituted multiple cases for offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and also under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

¶25

It then transpires that the matrimonial proceedings was referred to mediation and it was amicably settled and the parties have entered into a settlement agreement, whereby they have agreed to a divorce by mutual consent and it was also undertaken that the criminal proceedings would not be pressed.

¶26

¶27

However, since the offences alleged are non-

¶28

compoundable, the petitioners were not able to have it compounded. Hence, the present petition.

¶29

Since the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another ((2012) 10 SCC 303 permit that such proceedings could be quashed in order to enable the parties to live in amity, the present petition is allowed. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.22259/2012 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, stands quashed.

¶30

It is also placed on record that in terms of the settlements, the petitioner’s son was to pay a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- (Rupees Eleven lakh fifty thousand only) to the first respondent, which has been duly paid and acknowledged.

¶31

Sd/- JUDGE

¶32

R Shrinivasareddi v. Smt. Anusha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Shrinivasareddi v. Smt. Anusha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Siddasheshappa Vs the State

Mr Joe Pratap Singh Vs Smt Mary Sophia S

N Girish Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Thulasamma Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Noel Pharma Vs State at the Instance of

Naveen Reddy C Vs State by Banaswadi P S