Allowed

Sri. M.P. Raghavendra v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2021WP/5732/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging FIRs under 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act was allowed. The Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners upon finding a settlement reached during pendency, citing Supreme Court guidelines on quashing matrimonial FIRs after dispute resolution.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Criminal proceedings in CC No. 107/2019 against petitioners in Crime No.81/2018 quashed.

Sri. M.P. Raghavendra Vs State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.5732 of 2020 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI. M.P. RAGHAVENDRA, S/O. MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶9

SRI. MARIGOWDA, S/O. MAYASHETTY GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. PREMAVATHI, W/O. SRI. MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶11

PETITIONER Nos.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT #3, BIRESHWARA NIVASA, 20^TH CROSS, 33^RD MAIN, NEAR SIDDESHWARA TAKIES, J.P. NAGAR, 6^TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶12

SMT. RAMYA @ RAMYA RAMESH, W/O. SRI RAMESH KUMAR J., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶13

SRI RAMESH KUMAR J. @ RAMESH, S/O. SRI JAYARAM S., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶14

PETITIONER Nos.4 AND 5 ARE RESIDING AT #38/2, SHANTHA NILAYA, 1^ST CROSS, 35^TH MAIN, J.P. NAGAR, 6^TH PHASE, NEAR BUS STOP, J.P. NAGAR, 2^ND PHASE,

¶15

¶16

BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶17

SMT. SHASIKALA A.K. @ SHASHI, D/O. KEMPARAJU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

¶18

SMT. SHOBHA, W/O. KEMPARAJA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶19

SRI KEMPARAJA, S/O. SHIVALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶20

PETITIONER Nos.6 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT AREHARPA HALLI, HONAKERE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANNAHALLI, MANDYA - 571 432.

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SMT. S. CHAMPOO KAVYA, ADVOCATE for SRI SUNIL SASTRY M., ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND

¶24

STATE OF KARNATAKA, ALL WOMENS POLICE STATION, TUMKURU - 572 101, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶25

SMT. R.L. RACHANA, D/O. R. LAKSHMIKANTH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, No.14, SRI GURU RAMA DHAMA, KALIDASA NAGAR, SHIRAGATE, TUMKURU – 572 106.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP for R.1 SMT. K. NALINA, ADVOCATE for SRI S.K. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE for R.2)

¶28

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 20.8.2018 INFORMATION REPORT No.81/2018 DATED 20.8.2018 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN C.C.No.107/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU VIDE ANNEXURES - A TO C.

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Petitioner Nos.1 to 8 and respondent No.2 along with their respective counsel are present. They have filed a joint compromise petition before this Court.

¶33

This writ petition is filed by petitioner Nos.1 to 8/accused Nos.1 to 8 challenging the FIR in Crime No.81/2018 registered by the Women Police pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Tumkur, in CC No.107/2019, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 494, 504 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶34

During the pendency of this petition, the parties have filed a joint memo for having settled the dispute.

¶35

¶36

They also brought to the notice of this Court the matrimonial case filed by petitioner No.1 against respondent No.2 in MC No.5452/2014, which has been sent to the Mediation Centre and the said case has been settled as per the memorandum of settlement dated 06.02.2020. Both the parties have signed the same in the presence of the Mediator. Accepting the mediation report, the Family Court, Bengaluru, granted divorce and as per the terms of the settlement, the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.12,00,000/- to respondent No.2 as alimony, out of which, Rs.10,00,000/- has been paid and Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid before this Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, by way of Demand Draft, petitioner No.1 paid Rs.2,00,000/- to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 accepted the Demand Draft in the presence of her advocate in the Court.

¶37

In view of the settlement between the parties and the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another

¶38

¶39

reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, if the parties have settled their dispute in respect of matrimonial case, the Court can quash the criminal proceedings. Therefore, I am of the view that the FIR registered against the petitioners requires to be quashed.

¶40

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings against these petitioners in Crime No.81/2018 registered by the Women Police pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Tumkur, in CC No.107/2019, is hereby quashed.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sri. M.P. Raghavendra v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M.P. Raghavendra 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

Kumara N Vs State of Karnataka

H B Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vishwanatha K Vs State of Karnataka

Laxman S/O Chandrappa Doni Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dinesh Kamath K Vs the State of Karnataka

R v Nathan Vs a P Mahesh