Allowed

Bhushan S/O. Sudhakar Wankhade v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2019CRL.P/100354/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted compromise petitions filed in two criminal cases pending before JMFC, Belagavi. Upon affidavit evidence confirming receipt of Rs. 40 Lakhs by the complainant's side, the Court allowed the petitions and quashed proceedings for offences under sections 498A, IPC, and Dowry Prohibition Act.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petitions were allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 403/2018 were quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

Bhushan S/O. Sudhakar Wankhade Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^th DAY OF JUNE 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100354 OF 2019 C/w CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102329 OF 2018

¶6

IN CRL.P NO.100354 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

BHUSHAN, S/O. SUDHAKAR WANKHADE AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. H.NO.4,"ANUMOTI" NIVAS SHRAMSAFALYA COLONY, V.M.V. ROAD, AMARAVATI, TQ & DIST:AMARAVATHI, MAHARASHTRA. ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. SUMANGALA A. CHAKALABBI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (THROUGH MAHILA POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI), REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

¶12

DR. SUJATA, W/O. BHUSHAN WANKHADE AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. H.NO.295, SHIVABASAVANAGAR S.NO.2,

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

MALMARUTI EXTENSION BUILDING, BELAGAVI. ...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. V.S.KALASOORMATH, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. SHREEVATSA S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.403/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498-A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC R/W 3 & 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE JMFC COURT, BELAGAVI, MARKED AT DOCUMENT NO.4 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶17

¶18

IN CRL.P. NO.102329 OF 2018

¶19

BETWEEN

¶20

SUDHAKAR.M. WANKHADE AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: RTD. MEDICAL OFFICER R/O: H.NO.4 V.M.V.ROAD, ANUMATHI NIVAS, SHRAMSAFALYA COLONY, AMARAVATHI, TQ & DIST: AMARAVATHI, MAHARASHTRA.

¶21

MANISHA, W/O SUDHAKAR WANKHADE AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O: H.NO.4 V.M.V.ROAD, ANUMATHI NIVAS,

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

SHRAMSAFALYA COLONY, AMARAVATHI, TQ & DIST: AMARAVATHI, MAHARASHTRA. ...PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. ANANDKUMAR A. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND

¶26

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MAHILAL POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

¶27

DR.SUJATA W/O BHUSHAN WANKHADE AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O: H.NO.295, SHIVABASAVANAGAR S.NO.2, MALMARUTI EXTENSION BUILDING, BELAGAVI. ...RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. V.S.KALASOORMATH, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. SHREEVATSA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.403/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 323, 504,506 R/W 34 OF IPC R/W 3 & 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT PENDING BEFORE THE II-JMFC, BELAGAVI AT DOCUMENT NO.3 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

¶30

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel

¶34

for the second respondent and the learned High Court Government Pleader are present before the Court. Petitioner/accused No.1 viz., Sri Bhushan Sudhakar Wankhade, is also present before the Court.

¶35

On 30.05.2019, all the parties to the

¶36

proceedings were present before the Court. On that day, the petitioner-accused No.1-Sri. Bhushan Sudhakar Wankhade and the second respondent-Dr. Sujata filed an application under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code reporting settlement entered into between them. In the said compromise, it was agreed that the petitioner-accused No.1 has to pay permanent alimony of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakh), but because of some technical difficulties, on that day, the said amount could not be transferred in favour of the second respondent/complainant. The

¶37

: 5 :

¶38

complainant admitted the compromise on that day and she also signed the compromise petition. It was submitted by her that the compromise may be accepted after receipt of the permanent alimony of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakh) by her. Hence, the matter was adjourned to today for acceptance of compromise subject to reporting of the acceptance of the said amount by her through her father by filing an affidavit and an affidavit by the counsel who appears for the second respondent/complainant as she is residing in UAE and it is not possible for her to come on this day.

¶39

Today, the father of the second respondent/complainant viz., Sri Somashekar, S/o Huvappa Alawani, has filed an affidavit for having received Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakh) by his daughter Dr. Sujata vide RTGS UTR No.RATNR52019053100977958 dated 31.05.2019. The

¶40

: 6 :

¶41

same is also endorsed by Sri Shreevatsa S.Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/complainant, by filing an affidavit.

¶42

In view of the compromise entered into between the parties and in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to in the order dated 30.05.2019, the compromise petition is accepted and the petitions are allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.403/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belagavi, are hereby quashed, insofar as the petitioners in the above petitions are concerned.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Kms

Bhushan S/O. Sudhakar Wankhade v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhushan S/O. Sudhakar Wankhade v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zuhaib Ahamed Khan @ Zuhaib Vs State by Tilak Park P.S.

Chandru K. Vs the State of Karnataka

Haridas C. G @ Hari @ Das Vs the State of Karnataka

Raju @ Tangaraj S/O Selvaraj Acharya Vs the State of Karnataka

Raju @ Tangaraj S/O Selvaraj Acharya Vs the State of Karnataka

Raju @ Tangaraj S/O Selvaraj Acharya Vs the State of Karnataka