Allowed

Sri Kumar Swamy N R v. State by

Karnataka HC16 Aug 2021CRL.P/1335/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court relied on a composite settlement report filed before a civil court, noting that the husband had paid a portion of the agreed amount to the wife to amicably settle the dispute.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No.25/2021 and proceedings under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were quashed.

Sri Kumar Swamy N R Vs State by — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1335 of 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI KUMAR SWAMY N.R., S/O. RENUKARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE No.45/W, TROPICAL PARADISE LAYOUT, 5^TH CROSS, NEXT TO SOBHA, KUDLU, BENGALURU – 560 068.

¶9

SRI RENUKARADHYA, S/O. SHIVARUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶10

SMT. PUSHPA @ PUSHPALATHA V., W/O. RENUKARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶11

PETITIONERS No.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT #55, KAVERI BLOCK, K.S.R.P. QTRS, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU SOUTH, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 034.

¶12

SMT. N.R. REKHA, W/O. RENU S., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶13

SRI RENU S., S/O. SADASHIVAIAH B.C., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶14

PETITIONERS No.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT FLAT No.11, DWARAKA, DWARAKA SCHOOL, NAIKNAVARE DWARAKA, No.C27, CHAKAN, PUNE,

¶15

¶16

MAHARASHTRA, PUNE – 410 501. PERMANENT ADDRESS #155, HUSKUR, HUSKUR BENGALURU – 562 723.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI PRATHAPA R., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND

¶20

STATE BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶21

SARITHA P., W/O. KUMAR SWAMY N.R., RESIDING AT HOUSE No.45/W, TROPICAL PARADISE LAYOUT, 5^TH CROSS, NEXT TO SOBHA KUDLU, BENGALURU – 560 068.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTTY, HCGP for R-1. SRI I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA & SRI M.R. SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATES for R-2)

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME No.25/2021 REGISTERED BY THE PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE D.P. ACT ON THE FILE OF THE 9^TH A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU CITY, IN THAT ORDER SHEET NOT YET PUT UP.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 along with their

¶28

respective counsel are present before the Court.

¶29

¶30

This petition is filed by petitioner Nos.1 to 5 under Section 482 for quashing the FIR in Crime No.25/2021 registered by Parappana Agrahara Police for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶31

During the pendency of the petition, learned counsel for the parties have filed a joint application in I.A.No.3/2021 under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and contended that petitioner No.1 is the husband and respondent No.2 is the wife. Both of them have settled their dispute amicably before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal in M.C.No.2/2021, which was referred to Bangalore Mediation Centre for settlement. Accordingly, the matter has been settled between the parties as per the settlement report dated 27.07.2021. As per the terms of the settlement, petitioner No.1 agreed to pay Rs.10.50 Lakhs to respondent No.2. Out of which Rs.5.50 Lakhs was paid before the mediation centre and the balance amount of Rs.5.00 Lakhs was agreed to be paid before this Court at the time of quashing

¶32

4

¶33

the criminal proceedings and today, the DD for the said amount was handed over to respondent No.2 by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶34

Having heard the arguments and in view of the settlement between the parties in the matrimonial case involving exchange of valuables between the parties and in view of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, I am of the view that the FIR registered against the petitioners requires to be quashed. Hence, I.A.No.3/2021 is allowed.

¶35

The criminal petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings and further investigation in Crime No.25/2021 registered by Parappana Agrahara Police is hereby quashed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Sri Kumar Swamy N R v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kumar Swamy N R v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karthik Vs Sri T Yadva Murthy

Smt Divya a Vs Sri Adiveppa Magadum

Sri Muhammed Safwan Vs State of Karnataka

Prabal Ghosh Vs the State of Karnataka

Kamal Jajo Vishwakarma @ Kamal @ Jajo @ Amar Vs State by Koramangala Police

Mr. Uday K.M. Vs the State of Karnataka