Allowed

V N Ramalingam v. State by Banaswadi Women Ps

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2020CRL.P/5792/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings for Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act offences after the parties settled the matrimonial dispute. The petitioners agreed to pay Rs. 10 lakhs as maintenance, confirmed by receipt of a bankers' cheque, leading the court to find further proceedings not in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.25049/2012 arising out of C.No.159/2012 are hereby quashed.

V N Ramalingam Vs State by Banaswadi Women Ps — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

CRL.P. No.5792 OF 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5792 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

V.N. RAMALINGAM S/O LATE NATESAN AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS

¶10

NIRMALA RAMALINGAM W/O V.N. RAMALINGAM AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

¶11

SMT. CHITRA W/O JAY PRAKSAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶12

ALL RESIDING AT NO.17, 2^ND CROSS BANASWADI MAIN ROAD MS NAGAR, BANGALORE-560033

¶13

... PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SMT. KALYANI AGRWAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOUWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE BY BANASWADI WOMEN PS REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001

¶17

SMT. REKHA G D/O GANGADHARAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.23 ITI LAYOUT, "GEETGANGA" A NARAYANPURA

¶18

CRL.P. No.5792 OF 2020

¶19

¶20

DOORAVANINAGAR POST BANGALORE-560016 .. RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA , HCGP FOR R1; SRI.MOHAMMED KHAN.A, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.25049/2012 PASSED BY THE 11^TH A.C.M.M., BANGALORE ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.159/2012 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A OF IPC AN SECTIONS 3, 4 OF D.P.ACT.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The above petition is filed seeking for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.25049/2012 arising out of the crime No. 159/2012 pending on the file of the XI Addl.CMM, Bangalore registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶26

The above proceedings arising out of the matrimonial dispute between wife-respondent No.2 herein and accused No.1-late Sri.Harish Ramalingam. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are father and mother of late Harish Ramalingam. Petitioner No.3

¶27

CRL.P. No.5792 OF 2020

¶28

¶29

is his sister. Respondent No.2 during the lifetime of Sri.Harish Ramalingam had filed C.Misc. No.316/2012, as also the present complaint alleging offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 2005. In the interregnum Sri.Harish Ramalingam expired on 26.07.2014.

¶30

Thereafter the petitioners and respondent No.2 have resolved their disputes. The petitioners have agreed to make payment of Rs.10,00,000/(Rupees Ten lakhs only) as full and final settlement of a claim for respondent No.2 on account of alimony, maintenance, etc. The said sum would also be towards maintenance of minor son, Master Adithya.H.

¶31

The parties are before this Court by video conferencing. Smt.Kalyani Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner identifies the petitioners and

¶32

CRL.P. No.5792 OF 2020

¶33

¶34

Sri.Mohammed Khan, learned counsel identifies respondent No.2.

¶35

Respondent No.2 has confirmed receipt of Bankers cheque bearing No. 005224 dated 3.11.2020 drawn on HDFC Bank in favour of Master Adithya.H.

¶36

Though in the joint affidavit at paragraph 6, it is stated that Master Adithya's claim as regards the movable and immovable property of the joint family are given up, the said condition cannot be accepted by this Court since the same would be governed by the law of Succession. On the same being mentioned to the parties, they are agreeable for the eschewing of said condition No.6. Hence, condition at para 6 of the joint affidavit is eschewed.

¶37

In view of the settlement of the matrimonial disputes, I am of the considered opinion that further proceedings in the present matter would not be in the interest of justice of any of the parties.

¶38

CRL.P. No.5792 OF 2020

¶39

¶40

Hence, by allowing the petition, the proceedings in C.C.No.25049/2012 arising out of the crime No. 159/2012 pending on the file of the XI Addl.CMM, Bangalore, are hereby quashed.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

V N Ramalingam v. State by Banaswadi Women Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V N Ramalingam v. State by Banaswadi Women Ps

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

B Dharmaraju Vs Julappa

Sri. C S Nilugal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Punati Sridhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Shivaram Vs Smt. Kamala Shivaram

Ameen Khan Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Krishnamurthy N Vs State of Karnataka