Allowed

Sri Praveen v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2021CRL.P/4698/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 5971/2016 for offences under Sections 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, noting the dispute was matrimonial, the parties had settled, and the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C. No. 5971/2016 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore are hereby quashed.

Sri Praveen Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

CRL.P.NO.4698/2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4698 OF 2016

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

1 . SRI PRAVEEN S/O MAHARUDHRAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, NO.10, PRAKETH NILAYA 2^ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS, ABBAIAHREDDYLAYOUT KAGGADASAURA, C.V.RAMN NAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 093

¶10

2 . SRI MAHARUDHRAIAH S/O LATE SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶11

3 . SHARADA W/O SRI MAHARUDHRAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶12

BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF SHIVAKRUPA NEAR ANP CONVENT SCHOOL MCC ‘A’ BLOCK CHURCH ROAD DAVANAGERE

¶13

... PETITIONERS (BY SRI AMARESH A.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

CRL.P.NO.4698/2016

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS HALSUR GATE WOMEN POLICE BANGALORE-560 002

¶18

2 . SMT. PUSHPA JAVALI W/O SRI PRAVEEN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS NO.10, PRAKETH NILAYA 2^ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS ABBAIAH REDDY LAYOUT KAGGADASAPURA C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 093

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1; SMT. ANUPAMA SHANKAR ARAHUNASHI, ADV.FOR R2)

¶21

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.5971/2016 REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 498A, 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI ACMM COURT, BANGALORE.

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent

¶26

No.2, Learned High Court Government Pleader, Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 appear virtually.

¶27

CRL.P.NO.4698/2016

¶28

¶29

The parties are duly identified by their

¶30

respective counsel.

¶31

Respondent No.2 admits the execution of Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the parties before the Bangalore Mediation Centre. She submits that she has no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings.

¶32

Heard both side.

¶33

The marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 27.11.2009 at Davanagere. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1. The marriage of petitioner No.1 and the second respondent did not sail well.

¶34

Respondent No.2 filed complaint as per Annexure-B before respondent No.1/Police against the petitioners alleging that after marriage, the petitioners subjected her to physical and mental cruelty in connection with demand for additional dowry. It was further alleged that petitioner No.1

¶35

CRL.P.NO.4698/2016

¶36

¶37

was addicted to Alcohol and extra marital relationship and due to that he was assaulting her.

¶38

On receiving such complaint, respondent

¶39

No.1/Police registered FIR as per Annexure–A in crime No.86/2015 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A 506 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After Investigation, respondent No.1/Police have filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.

¶40

On receiving charge sheet, learned Magis8trate has taken cognizance of the offences and registered the case in C.C.No.5971/2016 and summoned the petitioner.

¶41

Apart from the criminal case, respondent No.2 filed petition in MC.No.4674/2016 and petitioner No.1 filed suit in O.S.No.5188/2019. In this case, the matter was referred to Bangalore Mediation Centre for

¶42

CRL.P.NO.4698/2016

¶43

¶44

mediation. The report of the Bangalore Mediation Centre states that the parties have settled the matter.

¶45

Parties and the counsel submit that after entering into the settlement before the Mediation Centre, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 filed M.C.No.1471/2021 before the Family Court, Bengaluru for dissolution of their marriage by Mutual consent on 09.04.2021, the Court allowed the said petition and passed decree for dissolution of marriage.

¶46

The above facts and circumstances also show that the dispute was predominantly matrimonial dispute. Since the parties have settled the matter, if the impugned proceedings were to continue, no purpose would be served and continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the petition is allowed.

¶47

CRL.P.NO.4698/2016

¶48

¶49

The proceedings in C.C.No.5971/2016 on the file

¶50

of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore are hereby quashed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

KTY

Sri Praveen v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Praveen 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

Dr Veera Bhushan R Goni Vs the State of Karnataka

Ganapathi Bhat a Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs S Girija Shivaram Vs the State of Karnataka by

B S Nagaraj Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police

Mr Hitesh Shamji Gala Vs Mrs Bhavna Hitesh Gala

Mohan Kumar N Vs State of Karnataka by