Allowed

Sri M Chandrashekaraiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2021CRL.P/1257/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged matrimonial criminal proceedings involving domestic violence allegations. The High Court quashed the case after confirming a unilateral settlement where the complainant agreed to withdraw the criminal case and co-operate for quashing, pending the full payment of agreed alimony.

What did the court decide?

(i) The petition is allowed; (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.76/2012 are hereby quashed.

Sri M Chandrashekaraiah Vs State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1257/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI M. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O MAHADEVAIAH.

¶9

SRI M. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O MAHADEVAIAH.

¶10

SRI NATARAJU @ NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O MAHADEVAIAH.

¶11

SRI M. RAVI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O MAHADEVAIAH.

¶12

SRI KUMAR @ M. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O MAHADEVAIAH.

¶13

PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF KOTAMBALLI VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571117.

¶14

… PETITIONERS [BY SRI P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE]

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MAHILA POLICE STATION, MYSURU. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶17

¶18

HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

SMT. REKHA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, NO.2964, TEMPLE ROAD, VONTIKOPPAL, MYSURU-570002.

¶20

… RESPONDENTS

¶21

[BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI PRABHUSWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 (THROUGH V.C.)]

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.76/2012 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A AND 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, REGISTERED BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, MYSURU, PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND JMFC, MYSURU BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶23

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

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying

¶26

this Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.76/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Mysuru.

¶27

The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 herein had filed a complaint and based on the complaint,

¶28

¶29

the police have registered the case against these petitioners. In the complaint, an allegation is made against the petitioners that they subjected respondent No.2 to both mental and physical harassment and also caused life threat. It is also an allegation that prior to the marriage, they have received the dowry and subsequent to the marriage also demanded additional dowry. The police investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that compromise was entered into between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and in terms of the settlement, both of them have agreed for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. In terms of the compromise, respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw C.C.No.76/2012 and agreed to co-operate for quashing of the proceedings. The learned counsel would submit that in terms of the settlement, petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- towards permanent alimony, out of which an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has already been paid and balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is payable before the Family Court in the MC proceedings. The learned counsel submits that M.C.No.12/2020 is filed and pending before the Court.

¶31

¶32

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 also does not dispute the settlement arrived between the parties.

¶33

On perusal of the document, which is placed before

¶34

the Court, it discloses that petitioner No.1 herein has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- as full and final settlement towards permanent alimony and also paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and remaining amount is payable within three months by way of demand draft in MC proceedings. Having perused the document and also the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, the parties have arrived at a settlement and learned counsel for respondent No.2 is not disputing the settlement. It is also not in dispute that MC petition is pending before the Court, wherein petitioner No.1 has to pay the balance amount. Having considered the grounds urged in the petition and the submissions of the respective learned counsel, it is appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein.

¶35

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶40

(ii) The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.76/2012 is hereby quashed.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sri M Chandrashekaraiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Chandrashekaraiah v. 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

Sri Vijaykumar Vs Smt Sworaba Gopinath

Krishnamurthy Y Vs State by Malur Police

Smt. S G Meghana Vs Sri Amith Telkar

Smt Nalini N Vs State by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station

Mr. Somashekar K M Vs Anti Curruption Bureau

Sri. Y. Sampath Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka