Allowed

Shri. G.T. Shanthakumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2021CRL.P/779/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and subsequent proceedings. The Court permitted the compoundable offences to be compounded after parties reached an amicable settlement and paid compensation to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR Crime No.79/2010 (C.C.No.21448/2012) and allowance of application under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. to compound offences.

Shri. G.T. Shanthakumar Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | 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.779/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SHRI. G.T. SHANTHAKUMAR

¶9

SON OF LATE SRI THIPPAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4

¶10

SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE ROAD CHIKKAGOLLARAHATTI MAGADI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560091

¶11

2 . SHRI. G.T. BHADRINATH GUPTHA SON OF LATE SRI THIPPAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.40, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR HESARAGHATTA ROAD, NAGASANDRA POST NEAR 8^TH MILE, T. DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560091

¶12

3 . SMT. SATHYA

¶13

DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI THIPPAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216

¶14

4 . SRI PRAKASH C

¶15

SON OF C.M. LAXMIKANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS NO.177, 4^TH MAIN ROAD

¶16

¶17

MEI LAYOUT, BAGALUGUNTE BENGALURU-560057

¶18

5 . SRI KANTHA RAJU SON OF LATE K.N. SHANKARARAJU SETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT CHANDRA STORES (BOOK STORES) RAMANAGARAM

¶19

6 . SMT. JYOTHI DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI THIPPAIAH SETTY WIFE OF SRI K.S. KANTHA RAJU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT CHANDRA SOTRES (BOOK STORES) RAMANAGARAM

¶20

7 . SRI SRIDHAR SON OF SRI KRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.51, 13^TH BLOCK 2^ND STAGE, 3^RD MAIN, NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU-560072. … PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SMT. GEETHA DEVI M.P., ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVANAGUDI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER REPRESENTED BY SPP., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001

¶24

2 . SMT. S. GEETHANJALI WIFE OF SHRI. SHANTHA KUMAR DAUGHTER OF S. SURYANARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.101, NEW COLONY RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD

¶25

¶26

RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE BENGALURU-560104 … RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1; SRI VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.79/2010 BEFORE THE BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN’S POLICE STATION IN C.C.NO.21448/2012 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶29

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

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying

¶32

this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.79/2010 registered at Basavangudi Women Station, Bengaluru, which is numbered as C.C.No.21448/2012 pending on the file of II ACMM, Bengaluru and grant such other relief as this Court deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶33

The factual matrix of the case is that, respondent No.2 had filed a complaint before the police and the police have registered an FIR, thereafter, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections

¶34

¶35

498A, 506, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘DP Act’ for short).

¶36

Now, the parties have settled the matter amicably

¶37

before the Mediation Centre and also filed an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C, before this Court seeking permission of this Court to permit them to compound the offences. All the parties are present before the Court and they have also signed the application. Apart from that, they have also produced Annexure ‘E’-Memorandum of Settlement under Section 89 of CPC read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005, wherein, the settlement has been arrived at between the parties. In terms of the settlement, an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to be paid to respondent No.2 herein. Now, the Pay Order for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- is given to respondent No.2 and the same has been acknowledged by respondent No.2.

¶38

In terms of Annexure ‘E’, respondent No.2 also

¶39

agreed to assist this Court in quashing of this proceeding in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and accordingly

¶40

¶41

all the parties are before the Court. Though, respondent No.2 is represented before the Court through her Counsel, she also present before the Court and acknowledged an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- for having received. In terms of the settlement,

¶42

the Court can permit the parties to compound the offences.

¶43

In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in GIAN

¶44

SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 ,

¶45

if the dispute is matrimonial dispute between the parties, such offences can be compounded with the permission of the Court, if it is not affecting the society at large and inter se between the parties. Hence, it is a fit case to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein.

¶46

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶47

following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶50

(ii) The application filed under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C, is hereby allowed.

¶51

¶52

(iii) Consequently, an FIR in Crime No.79/2010 registered at Basavangudi Women Station, Bengaluru, which is numbered as C.C.No.21448/2012 pending on the file of II ACMM, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.

¶53

In view of allowing the main petition, I.A., if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

cp*

Shri. G.T. Shanthakumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. G.T. Shanthakumar 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

Vinayak B Kale Vs State of Karnataka