Allowed

Vinayak B Kale v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2021CRL.P/410/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition seeking quashing of an FIR. It held that an inter se matrimonial dispute had been settled via a memorandum of understanding, permitting the compounding of offences under IPC Sections 323, 324, 341, 504, and 506 read with Section 149.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.579/2020 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 149 are quashed.

Vinayak B Kale Vs State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.410/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . VINAYAK B. KALE AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O BALAWANTH KALE, RESIDING AT NO 3/B, SAI AMRUTH NIVAS APARTMENT, AREKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560076

¶9

2 . BALAWANT S. KALE AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O SHAMBU, RESIDING AT NO 3/B, SAI AMRUTH NIVAS APARTMENT, AREKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560076

¶10

3 . BHARATHI KALE AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O BALAWANTH KALE, RESIDING AT No.3/B, SAI AMRUTH NIVAS APARTMENT, AREKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560076

¶11

4 . VIJAY KALE AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O BALAWANTH KALE,

¶12

¶13

RESIDING AT No.3/B, SAI AMRUTH NIVAS APARTMENT, AREKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560076

¶14

5 . SRIRAM AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O MUNIYAPPA, RESIDING AT No. KULUME PALYA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, ANJANAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560076 … PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI PRAVEEN C., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SAMPANGIRAM NAGARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001

¶18

2 . SMT.SHWETHA K.V. AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, W/O VINAYAK KALE, RESIDING AT No.4142, JANAPRIYA HEIGHTS, MALLASANDRA, BENGALURU-560057 … RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI SHOWRI H.R., HCGP FOR R1; SRI S.N.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.579/2020 FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONERS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF IX ADDL. C.M.M. BENGALURU.

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.579/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC on the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.

¶25

The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 had lodged the complaint with the first respondent vide complaint dated 22.09.2019 that the petitioners herein, who are the husband as well as their in-laws and other persons had assaulted her and her parents. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case for the above offences and thereafter investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the petitioners herein.

¶26

Now the parties have filed an application under Section 320 (1) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying the Court to permit them to compound the offences invoked against

¶27

¶28

them, as the matter has been settled among themselves on the advice of the well-wishers of the family. The parties have also filed Annexure-D, which is a memorandum of settlement arrived at between the parties under Section 89 of CPC. In terms of the memorandum of settlement, they have arrived for mutual settlement and an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- has been paid in total to the respondent No.2 and also returned the gold ornaments. Now there is no dispute between the parties as already the divorce has been granted by the jurisdictional Court. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and also in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of GIAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , if the dispute between the parties is a matrimonial offence not affecting the society at large and inter se between the parties, such offences can be compounded with the permission of the Court.

¶29

¶30

In view of the discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i) The application filed under Section 320(1) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.

¶33

(ii) Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.579/2020 on the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, are hereby quashed.

¶34

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2021

¶35

does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

PYR

Vinayak B Kale v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinayak B Kale 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri v.M.Srinivasagowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Premalatha Vs State by

Sri Channakeshava B N Vs State of Karnataka

Sri G v Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Vinod Vs State by K.G. Halli Police Station

Shri. G.T. Shanthakumar Vs State of Karnataka