Allowed

Vadiraja v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2020CRL.P/4864/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings in a matrimonial dispute involving offences under Sections 498-A and 504 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act after the parties reached a compromise regarding custody and maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No.1263/2018 pending before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere are quashed.

Vadiraja Vs State of Karnataka by — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

CRL.P. No.4864 OF 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4864 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VADIRAJA S/O DHEERENDRACHAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.216/8, BALAJI ROAD THYAGARAJANAGARA BANGALORE-560028 ... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.VISHNUMURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN’S P.S. DAVANAGERE R/P BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-01

¶13

SMT. SRILATHA W/O VADIRAJ AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.1693/19, BHADRA COLONY HADHADI ROAD DAVANAGERE-577525 ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V.S, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1263/2018 FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/S.498-A, 504 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

CRL.P. No.4864 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Sri.Vishnumurthy, learned counsel submits that he has complied with all the office objections. As regards, further objection viz., furnishing of typed copy of all handwritten documents, he submits that he would not be relying on those documents. Hence, accepting the said submission, office objections are over ruled.

¶21

Sri.Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel submits that he has entered appearance for respondent No.2 and has filed vakalatnama with the registry. Since the parties have come from outside Bangalore, relying on the said submission, Sri.Madhukar Deshpande is taken to be as counsel appearing for respondent No.2, therefore his name is not shown in the cause list.

¶22

The petitioner and respondent have filed a joint memo. The petitioner- Sri.Vadiraja and respondent No.2 - Smt.Sri Latha are present before this Court and they are identified by their respective counsels. It is submitted that the petitioner and respondent have

¶23

CRL.P. No.4864 OF 2020

¶24

¶25

entered into a compromise in the pending MFA No.1035/2019 and the said compromise has been taken on record. Their marriage has been dissolved and in terms thereto, the custody of the minor childKum.Sudha is granted to respondent No.2.

¶26

Respondent No.2 has received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-

¶27

by way of permanent alimony by way of Demand Draft bearing No.182735 dated 1.09.2020 and the further amount of Rs.1,98,500/- being arrears of maintenance vide Demand Draft bearing No.182733 dated 31.08.2020. This receipt has also been accepted in MFA No.1035/2019 today. The parties submit that in view of the said settlement, there are no other amounts owed by the petitioner to respondent No.2 nor is there any item to be handed over by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner.

¶28

The above proceedings being one under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.1263/2018 for offences under Section 498-A and 504 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

¶29

CRL.P. No.4864 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

Prohibition Act, essentially arises out of the matrimonial dispute between the parties. Matrimonial disputes having been resolved between the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the parties having withdrawn the allegations against each other, there would be no purpose served by continuing with the said proceedings and/or the continuance of the proceedings will only cause injustice to the parties. Hence, further proceedings in C.C.No.1263/2018 pending on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere is hereby quashed.

¶32

Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed .

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Vadiraja v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vadiraja v. 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

Dinakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Naveen S/O K Karthakeyan Vs the State of Karnataka

Raosaheb Ramagouda Patil Vs Appasab Ramagouda Patil

Sri H.M. Srinath Vs Sri. Muninagappa

B Gokuldas Pai Vs Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd.

Gangadhar B Vs the State of Karnataka