Allowed

Pramod Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2021CRL.P/4032/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR for cruelty and dowry harassment. The court noted that the matrimonial dispute was resolved via a settlement accepted by the Family Court, which dissolved the marriage, prompting the wife to withdraw the FIR.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No.264/2019 registered by the police station is quashed.

Pramod Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4032 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Pramod Kumar, S/o S.L.Rajashekara, Aged about 39 years,

¶9

Smt. Manjula, W/o S.L.Rajashekara, Aged about 53 years,

¶10

S.L.Rajashekara, S/o Late Lakshmegowda S.C., Aged about 70 years,

¶11

Prashanthkumar S.R., S/o S.L.Rajashekara, Aged about 35 years,

¶12

All are residents of No.48/1, Kaluve Beedi, Saligrama Village & Post, Krishnarajanagar Taluk, Mysuru District-571604.

¶13

Smt. Pavithra S.R., D/o S.L.Rajashekar, W/o M.S.Hemanth Kumar, R/at No.218, 4^th Cross, Tank Bond Indiranagar, Chamundi Hills, Mysuru-570010.

¶14

…Petitioners

¶15

(By Sri Rajesh Shettigar, Advocate)

¶16

¶17

AND

¶18

The State of Karnataka, By Konanakunte Police Station, Bengaluru City. Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001.

¶19

Smt. A Ramya, W/o Pramod Kumar, Aged about 33 years, Residing at ‘Nandagokula’ No.17, 5^th Main, 6^th Cross, Srinidhi Layout, Konanakunte Post, Bengaluru-560062.

¶20

…Respondents

¶21

(By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP for R1, Sri Govindraj K., Advocate for R2)

¶22

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the FIR in Cr.No.264/2019 of Konanakunte Police Station, Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶23

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day through video conferencing , the Court made the following:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶26

the second respondent. Learned High Court Government Pleader is also present. The first petitioner-Pramod Kumar and second respondent-

¶27

A.Ramya are also present through video conferencing.

¶28

¶29

The first petitioner and the second

¶30

respondent were referred to Bengaluru Mediation Centre. They were able to arrive at a settlement. A memo of settlement is also produced. Annexure-D shows that the Family Court, Bengaluru accepted the mediation report and passed an order dissolving the marriage of the first petitioner and the second respondent. In Para-7 of the mediation report, it is stated that the FIR registered in Crime No.264/2019 shall be closed pursuant to settlement between the parties.

¶31

The offences alleged are under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The offence under Section 498A is non-compoundable and moreover the FIR came to be registered in the background of the matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the second respondent. The second respondent who is present before the Court through video-conferencing states

¶32

¶33

that she is withdrawing the FIR lodged by her against the petitioner and his other family members. Since the dispute between them is now resolved, the FIR can be quashed and hence the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Petition is allowed.

¶36

FIR in Crime No.264/2019 registered

¶37

by the first respondent police station is

¶38

quashed.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Kmv/-

Pramod Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Srinivasa Vs Radha Ramakrishnan

M. Srinivasa Vs Mrs. Shobana G Subramaniam

Sri Manjunatha B K @ Manju Vs State by

Smt L M Sarvamangala Vs the State of Karnataka

M Bhaskar @ Londe Bhaskar Vs the State by

Anand Arasu Gowda S Vs State of Karnataka