Allowed

Mr Rahul Nair v. State by Hsr Layout

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2017CRL.P/4534/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings for rape and other IPC offences pursuant to a writ petition. The ruling was based on the reconciliation and subsequent marriage between the alleged victim and the petitioner, applying precedent to allow disposal of non-compoundable charges.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Crime No.408/2015 before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, were quashed.

Mr Rahul Nair Vs State by Hsr Layout — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4534 OF 2015

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Mr. Rahul Nair, Son of Radhakrishnan Nair, Aged about 25 years, Residing at No.536, 2^nd Cross,

¶8

Near: Durgaura Railway Station, Shanthinagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 001.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri Siji Malayil, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

State by HSR Layout Police Station, Bangalore – 560 102.

¶13

Ms. Thejaswani,

¶14

Daughter of Late Balaram,

¶15

¶16

Aged about 24 years, No.35/25, 2^nd Cross, Sri Balaji P.G.Teachers Colony, HSR Layout, Bangalore City, Karnataka – 560 102.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(By Shri B. Visweswaraiah, Government Pleader for R1; Shri A. Derick Anil, Advocate for R-2)

¶19

¶20

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the criminal proceedings in Crime No.408/2015 in H.S.R.Layout Police Station, Bangalore pending before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 313, 323, 376, 406, 420 and 506 of IPC.

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶24

learned Counsel for the respondents.

¶25

It transpires that the petitioner was accused of rape

¶26

and other offences punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It now transpires that the victim has

¶27

¶28

reconciled with the petitioner and they have even married each other. Therefore, the de facto complainant before the court would state that in order to enable the petitioner and respondent no.2 to live together in harmony, the criminal proceedings be closed.

¶29

However, since the offences alleged were non-

¶30

compoundable, the petitioner is before this court in this petition seeking that the proceedings be quashed.

¶31

Having regard to the above circumstance and in the

¶32

light of the law laid down by the apex court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2010)12 SCC 303, the petition is summarily allowed. The proceedings pending in Crime No.408/2015 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is quashed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Mr Rahul Nair v. State by Hsr Layout

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Rahul Nair v. State by Hsr Layout

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

State of Karnataka Vs N. Chandra

Sri Kulashekar Chaithanya Das Vs the State by Subramanyanagar

Indiresh Vs Rajeeva @ Rajesh Sadana

Sri H Nagaraja Vs Income Tax Department

State by P S I Vs v Ramesh Bairy

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. a. v. Devaraj