Allowed

Dr J Uday v. the Inspector of Police

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2021CRL.P/5329/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings against four petitioners accused of dowry harassment under IPC 498A and 506, and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4. The court noted that the matrimonial dispute was settled in Family Court with the complainant receiving alimony, relying on Gian Singh guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; criminal proceedings in C.C.No.3210/2017 and complaint Crime No.197/2017 quashed.

Dr J Uday Vs the Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | 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 K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5329 of 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

DR. J. UDAY, S/O. S. JAYARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶9

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O. S. JAYARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶10

SRI JAYARAMAIAH, S/O. LATE M. SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶11

SRI RAKESH J., S/O. JAYARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDING AT No.6, SADGURUSANTHA KESHAWADASA ROAD, BEHIND VISHWABHARATHI ASHRAM, KASABA HOBLI, ARSINAKUNTE VILLAGE, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT – 562 123.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI BHAT RAMACHANDRA GANAPATI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND

¶16

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NELAMANGALA TOWN POLICE STATION,

¶17

2

¶18

NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU DISTRICT – 562 123. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶19

SMT. MANJULA, W/O. J. UDAY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.4/1, 11^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, B.K. NAGAR, YESHWANTAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP for R-1 SRI N.K. HARISH, ADVOCATE for R-2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.No.3210/2017 NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION WHICH THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.3210/2017 pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

¶26

¶27

Prohibition Act and the complaint registered by the Nelamangala Police in Crime No.197/2017.

¶28

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 as also learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶29

The Police registered the case and filed the charge sheet on the complaint filed by respondent No.2 for the aforesaid offences. The parties have settled their matrimonial dispute in the Family Court, Bengaluru, in M.C.No.4068/2019 by filing a joint divorce petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and also the mediation settlement report. As per the settlement, the complainant–respondent No.2 agreed to receive Rs.5.00 Lakhs as alimony. Out of which, she has received Rs.4.00 Lakhs and she agreed to receive Rs.1.00 Lakh at the time of quashing the criminal proceedings before the Court. Accordingly, today, learned counsel for the petitioners handed over the DD No.012576 dated 11.08.2021 for a

¶30

¶31

sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh drawn on HDFC Bank in the name of respondent No.2-Manjula.C to Sri.N.K.Harish, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶32

Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records especially, the mediation settlement report as well as the consent divorce obtained by both parties before the Trial Court in M.C.No.4068/2019 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, to the effect that if the parties have settled their dispute between themselves, the Court can quash the criminal proceedings against the accused persons, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 requires to be quashed. Hence, the following:

¶33

Order

¶34

Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶35

The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.3210/2017

¶36

pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and

¶37

¶38

JMFC, Nelamangala, and the complaint registered by the Nelamangala Police in Crime No.197/2017 are hereby quashed.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Dr J Uday v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr J Uday v. the Inspector of Police

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 Lion V.G. Shetty (Venudhara G Shetty) Vs the State of Karnataka

Umashankar N Vs Smt. Ambika H K

Syed Navaz Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.M.Ramakrishna Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt v Kamalamma Vs State of Karnataka

Srikanta v Vs State of Karnataka