Allowed

Bandi Sundeep v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2021CRL.P/98/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR under 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act via a criminal petition and compoundable application. The Court quarantined general exculpatory acts, focusing on the settlement between parties arrived at under Section 89 CPC. Relying on Gian Singh, the Court held the dispute was matrimonial and allowed quashing.

What did the court decide?

The application and petitions were allowed; the FIR and proceedings in Crime No.181/2019 were quashed.

Bandi Sundeep Vs State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.98/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BANDI SUNDEEP, S/O BANDI SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

¶9

SMT. BANDI DHANALAKSHMI, W/O BANDI SATYANARAYANA,

¶10

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶11

BANDI SATYANARAYANA, S/O BANDI VENKATA KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.602, BLOCK-A, VISHNU SPLENDORS, STREET NO.1, SRINAGAR COLONY, YOUSUFGUDA, HYDERABAD - 500 073, TELANGANA. … PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

¶17

SMT. BHANU THEJA CHITTURI, W/O SUNDEEP BANDI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT FLAT NO.204 C-BLOCK, SIRI VINAYAKA HIGHLAND, CHIKKALLASANDRA MAIN ROAD, SNEHA COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 061 … RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI A.V. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CR.NO.181/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE 2^ND ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

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

¶23

this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.181/2019, pending before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶24

The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 had filed a complaint and based on the complaint, the police have registered the case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, since an allegation was made

¶25

¶26

in the complaint that the petitioners subjected respondent No.2 to cruelty and also accepted the dowry and demanded additional dowry.

¶27

Now the parties have filed an application under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court stating that the matter has been settled amongst the parties before the Mediation Centre on the intervention of the well wishers and the settlement was arrived at under Section 89 of CPC read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005. In terms of the settlement, respondent No.2 has agreed to co-operate for the closure of the criminal case in C.C.1935/2020 pending before the Court of the II ACMM, Bengaluru. In support of the settlement, the parties have filed the joint memo and also filed separate affidavit of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are present before the Court. Respondent No.2 is represented through the counsel and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 also does not dispute the settlement arrived between the parties.

¶28

In view of the settlement arrived between the parties and as the dispute is with regard to the matrimonial dispute, the

¶29

¶30

Apex Court in the judgment in the case of GIAN SINGH v.

¶31

STATE OF PUNJAB reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held that the parties can be permitted to compound the offences, if the offences are not against the society at large and if it is interse between the parties.

¶32

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶33

following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

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

¶36

(ii) Consequently, the petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.1935/2020 (Crime No.181/2019) is hereby quashed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Bandi Sundeep v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandi Sundeep 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 M Chandrashekaraiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Nalini N Vs State by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station

Mr. Somashekar K M Vs Anti Curruption Bureau

Sri. Nagaraju B H Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kemparaju B H Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Upendra Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka