Allowed

Sumith Jain v. State by Halasuru Police

Karnataka HC19 Oct 2020CRL.P/4840/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners for alleged matrimonial offences. The court allowed the petition after parties filed a joint memo agreeing to withdraw allegations and dissolve their marriage, finding that continuation of proceedings would cause injustice.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.53737/2020 pending against the petitioners are quashed and the petition allowed.

Sumith Jain Vs State by Halasuru Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.P.No.4840of 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.4840 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SUMITH JAIN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O SUBHASHCHAND #36, SAKLECHA MANSION, ITC ROAD RS PALYA, KAMMANAHALLI BENGALOORU-560 043.

¶10

SANTOSH BAI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O SUBHASHCHAND #41, G NO. 10 STREET, JOGUPALYA HALASURU, BENGALOORU – 560 008.

¶11

SUBHASHCHAND AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LATE HARAKCHAND

¶12

#41, G NO. 10 STREET, JOGUPALYA HALASURU, BENGALOORU – 560 008.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI.G.S.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE BY HALASURU POLICE BENGALOORU REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BENGALOORU – 560 001.

¶17

MADHURI

¶18

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS D/O LATE MANOJ KUMAR W/O S. SUMITH JAIN

¶19

Crl.P.No.4840of 2020

¶20

¶21

#24, DIWAN SURAPPA LANE, 1 CROSS, CHICKPET, BENGALOORU – 560 053. ... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV.,HCGP FOR R1; SRI.SRINIVAS A.R.ADV., FOR R2)

¶23

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.53737/2020 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT POLICE ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED X ACMM, BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.498-A, 504 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF DP ACT. AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are present through video conferencing identified by their respective Advocates, who confirmed their identity.

¶28

The petitioners and respondent No.2 have filed a joint memo stating that they have agreed to withdraw the allegations made against each other. They submit that they have agreed for the dissolving of their marriage in M.C.No.1873/2019. On enquiry, respondent No.2/complainant submits that she has voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence after obtaining legal advice from her Counsel agreed

¶29

Crl.P.No.4840of 2020

¶30

¶31

for the same. Similar submission is made by the first petitioner.

¶32

The above proceedings arising out of the matrimonial dispute, the parties having resolved their disputes, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No.53737/2020 would only cause injustice to both the parties and it would be in the interest of justice for the said proceedings to be closed. Hence, the proceedings in C.C.No.53737/2020 pending on the file of X ACMM., Bengaluru, are hereby quashed.

¶33

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

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

KNM/-

Sumith Jain v. State by Halasuru Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumith Jain v. State by Halasuru Police

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

Kalimada Subbaiah @ Dharmesh Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Nagendra Vs State of Karnataka

Lohith S Vs the State of Karnataka