Allowed

Kalimada Subbaiah @ Dharmesh v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC19 Oct 2020CRL.P/4071/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner for offences including rape and dowry after the complainant filed an affidavit stating the complaint was lodged at the instigation of her former husband, whom she subsequently divorced.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No.10/2019 and consequent FIR and complaint were quashed; Criminal Petition allowed.

Kalimada Subbaiah @ Dharmesh Vs the State of Karnataka by — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.P.No.4071of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4071 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KALIMADA SUBBAIAH @ DHARMESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE ACHAPPA, R/AT PARAKATAGERI VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 218. ... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.M.T.NANAIAH, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.TUMBIGI PRABHUGOUD.B.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRIMANGALA POLICE STATION, KODAGU DISTRICT REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

K.S.KAVYA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, W/O.K.S.SANTHOSH, R/AT PARAKATAGERI VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 218. ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI.VINAYAKA V.S. HCGP FOR R1; SRI.ARAVINDA GOWDA PATIL ADV.,FOR R2) -----

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.10/2019 (PC.NO.31/2019) REGISTERED BY THE 1^ST

¶16

Crl.P.No.4071of 2020

¶17

¶18

RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 312,354,376,450,506, OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PONNAMPET AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN. AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The above petition has filed seeking for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.10/2019 arising out of P.C.No.31/2019 filed by respondent No.2 as against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 312, 354, 376, 450 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Respondent No.2 K.S.Kavya is before this court (through video conferencing) identified by her counsel Sri.Aravinda Gowda Patil. On enquiry, respondent No.2 submits that there is no offence of Section 376 of IPC which has been committed on her. The complaint has not been filed of her own volition but at the behest of her husband. She did not even know the contents of the complaint when filed since the same was filed by her husband. She has now came to know the contents of the complaint and is not agreeable with the contents

¶23

Crl.P.No.4071of 2020

¶24

¶25

of the said complaint and as such, she had approached the first respondent – Police seeking for giving up the case on the prosecution. However, the first respondent – Police refused to do so. It is in view thereof, she has filed the affidavit dated 18.09.2020 placing the above facts on record and she submits that she is not interested in continuing the proceedings any further, for which she has obtained advice from her Advocates in regard to the above statement as also the contents of the affidavit filed by her dated 18.09.2020.

¶26

She further submits that she has divorced her first husband on whose behest the complaint had been filed on the above ground as also various other reasons.

¶27

The signature and identity of the second respondent has been identified by one Sri.D.Devaiah, Advocate, who is second respondent’s Counsel in Kodagu. Sri.Aravinda Gowda Patil who appears through video conferencing also identifies respondent No.2, who is present before the court through video conferencing.

¶28

Crl.P.No.4071of 2020

¶29

¶30

In view of the same, accepting the submissions and the affidavit filed by respondent No.2, more so when respondent No.2 has categorically stated that the complaint had been filed at the behest of her first husband and not by her voluntarily, the proceedings in crime No.10/2019 registered by Srimangala Police Station arising out of P.C.No.31/2019 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC., Ponnampet, is hereby quashed.

¶31

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. I.A.No.1/2020 is dismissed.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

KNM/-

Kalimada Subbaiah @ Dharmesh v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalimada Subbaiah @ Dharmesh v. the State of Karnataka by

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

Dr Poonam a Naik Vs State by Basavanagudi Women Ps

Mr Chandrashekar Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mani Vs State of Karnataka by

Sumith Jain Vs State by Halasuru Police

Sri Nagendra Vs State of Karnataka

Lohith S Vs the State of Karnataka