Allowed

Mr Veerabadraiah H C v. the State by Byatarayanapura P S

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2017CRL.P/149/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka permitting quash of domestic violence FIR. Respondent wife reconciled with first petitioner, expressed desire to close case, and stated no objection to quashing. Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC was allowed citing Supreme Court precedent. Crime No.479/2015 and pending proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal case No.479/2015 and any other initiated proceedings against petitioners and family members were quashed.

Mr Veerabadraiah H C Vs the State by Byatarayanapura P S — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.149 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Mr. Veerabadraiah H.C., No.17, 15^th Main Road, Vinayaka Layout, Bangalore -560 039.

¶9

Mr. Basavaraju H.C., No.17, 15^th Main Road, Vinayaka Layout, Bangalore – 560 039.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(By Shri Sivamanithan S., Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

The State by Byatarayanapura Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶14

¶15

Smt. Yashaswini, Aged about 31 years, No.66, 2^nd Main,

¶16

A Cross,

¶17

Byatarayanapura, Mysore Road,

¶18

Bangalore – 560 026.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(By B. Vishweswaraiah, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1/State)

¶21

¶22

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.0479/2015 registered with the Byatarayanapura Police Station, on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 341, 504, 506 and 307 read with 34 of IPC.

¶23

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

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The second respondent and the first petitioner had

¶26

married in the year 2013. However, the marriage appeared to

¶27

have failed and it transpires that there were acrimony, as a result of which they had separated and the second respondent

¶28

¶29

had filed a criminal complaint not only against the first petitioner, but also his family members alleging offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 341, 504, 506, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶30

Notwithstanding the same, the Respondent No.2 and

¶31

the first petitioner have now reunited and in order to ensure that there is harmony with the respondent No.2 has agreed that she would like to close the criminal proceedings. However, since the offences alleged are non-compoundable, that is not permissible. Hence, the present petition.

¶32

Respondent No.2 is present before court and would state that she has no objection if the criminal cases are closed.

¶33

In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another ((2012) 10 SCC 303, the petition is summarily allowed and the case pending against the petitioner and his family members in Crime No.479/2015 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, stands quashed and any

¶34

¶35

other proceedings that are initiated and pending, also would

stand quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Mr Veerabadraiah H C v. the State by Byatarayanapura P S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Veerabadraiah H C v. the State by Byatarayanapura P S

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

Mohammed Nayeem Khan Vs State by Nazarbad Police

G. S. Prabhakara Vs the Secretary

Sri Muralidhar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Thippeswamy C.G Vs Sri. Shivaswamy N

Mukkateera Sampath Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Maharaja Plywoods Vs M/S Rajeshwari Traders