Allowed

Nikhil Bajaj v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2021CRL.P/2137/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed pending criminal proceedings against petitioners in a matrimonial dispute under Sections 498A, 315, 504, 506 of IPC read with Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court allowed the petition based on the settlement between parties and the subsequent decree of divorce, citing the Gian Singh guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed; the criminal proceedings in S.C.No.253/2016 pending in the Court of LXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru are quashed.

Nikhil Bajaj Vs the State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2137 of 2020

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

NIKHIL BAJAJ,

¶9

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O. ASHOK BAJAJ,

¶10

ASHOK BAJAJ, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O. D.N. BAJAJ,

¶11

SMT. MANJU BAJAJ, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O. ASHOK BAJAJ,

¶12

RAMESH BAJAJ, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. D.N. BAJAJ,

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDING AT MIRLOK WOODS, FLAT No.G-2, BUILDING No.82, KORLIM, GOA – 403 110.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI M.R.C. MANOHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNTAKA BY J.P. NAGAR POLICE, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶18

¶19

SMT. MONIKA BAJAJ AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, W/O. NIKHIL BAJAJ, RESIDING AT No.625, 2^ND FLOOR, 14^TH CROSS, 32^ND MAIN, J.P. NAGAR, 1^ST PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 078.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP for R-1 SRI ARUN A. GADAG, ADVOCATE for R-2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2020 PASSED BY THE LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, IN S.C.No.253/2016 REGISTERED BY J.P. NAGAR POLICE, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 315, 504 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT ON 227 OF CR.P.C. APPLICATION AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS FROM THE CHARGES.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 along with their respective counsel are present. They have filed an application in I.A.No.1/2021 with joint affidavit for quashing the criminal proceedings in S.C.No.253/2016 pending on the file of LXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-72) for the offences punishable

¶26

¶27

under Sections 498A, 315, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

The case of the petitioners is that on the complaint of respondent No.2, the Jayaprakash Nagar Police have registered a case for the aforesaid offences and after the investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. Thereafter, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions and after appearance, the petitioners being the accused, filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging them from the charges. The same was rejected by the Trial Court. Hence, they are before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶30

During the pendency of this petition, the parties said to have settled their dispute between themselves. The matrimonial case which was pending before the Principal Judge, Bengaluru in M.C.No.517/2015 has been referred to the Mediation Centre and the matter was settled between

¶31

¶32

the parties. As per the terms of the settlement, divorce has been granted and a decree of divorce has been passed on 18.03.2021. The same is placed before the Court.

¶33

As per the terms of the compromise, respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 filed an application in I.A.No.1/2021 with joint affidavit for quashing the criminal proceedings. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Mediation Centre, all the pending cases against the petitioners are withdrawn and closed except this case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

¶34

of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that Courts can quash the criminal proceedings by allowing the parties to settle their dispute between themselves. Keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the settlement between the parties, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Petitioner No.1 has paid Rs.10.00 Lakhs to respondent No.2 by way of DD. In terms of the

¶35

¶36

settlement, the petition requires to be allowed.

¶37

Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2021 is allowed.

¶38

Order

¶39

The criminal petition is allowed.

¶40

The criminal proceedings in S.C.No.253/2016

¶41

pending on the file of LXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Nikhil Bajaj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Bajaj v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri. Arun Antony Vs State by Hebbagodi P. S.

Sri Narayana T Vs the State of Karnataka

Shyam. B Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Basavaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Subramani Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Harsha Ahuja Vs Sri Dinesh Gopaldas Ahuja