Allowed

Sachin S/O Shrikant Hosamani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2022CRL.P/100971/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC sought to quash proceedings against multiple petitioners for dowry and cruelty offences. The court observed that the parties had amicably settled the dispute, the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent, and the complainant had no objection to quashing. Consequently, allowing the proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed and proceedings in CC No.3/2022 quashed.

Sachin S/O Shrikant Hosamani Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 100971 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100971 OF 2022 (482-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed
by SUJATASUBHASH
PAMMAR
SUJATASUBHASHPAMMAR Location: Highcourt ofKarnataka,Dharwad Bench,Dharwad
Date:
2022.11.23
10:41:50 -0800

¶9

SACHIN S/O SHRIKANT HOSAMANI AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. BUSINES, R/O. ADI SHAKTI NILAYA, JOSHI GALLI, ILKAL, TALUKA ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT PIN-587125

¶10

SHOBHA W/O SHRIKANT HOSAMANI AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. ADI SHAKTI NILAYA, JOSHI GALLI, ILKAL, TALUKA ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT PIN-587125

¶11

SHRIKANT S/O DEVAPPA HOSAMANI AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. ADI SHAKTI NILAYA, JOSHI GALLI, ILKAL, TALUKA ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT PIN-587125

¶12

SHWETA W/O PRADIP PARDESHI AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. FLAT NO. A-203, RAJI HOUSE, PLOT NO. 11, SECTOR,5 NEAR RAMKRISHNA HOTEL, GHANSOLI, NAVI MUMBAI THANE, MAHARASHTRA400701

¶13

PADMA W/O GURUDEV KALLIMANAI AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. PLOT NO. 42 SHIVASHAKTI, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, BARAKOTRI ROAD, DHARWAD

¶14

¶15

CRL.P No. 100971 of 2022

¶16

GURUDEV S/O YAMANAPPA KALLIMANI AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC, RETIRED R/O. PLOT NO. 42, SHIVASHAKTI, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, BARAKOTRI ROAD, DHARWAD

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. RAVIRAJ C PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE P.I, HUBBALLI DHARWAD WOMEN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD

¶21

ANJANA W/O SACHIN HOSAMANI AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. HOUSE NO. 146 , SUMA NILAYA, 14TH CROSS, MAHAMANE LAYOUT, NAVODAYA NAGAR, K.U.D.ROAD DHARWAD-58007

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI V S KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1, SRI S B DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.03/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC II, DHARWAD, REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT TO SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

CRL.P No. 100971 of 2022

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is impugned in this petition. The summary of the charge sheet is that the 2^nd respondent – defacto complainant is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1 and the accused used to be subjected her to cruelty both mentally and physically and abused her filthy language and demanded to bring money from the parental home.

¶30

The parties are present before Court through video conferencing.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has filed a memo stating that the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves and their marriage has been dissolved by mutual consent in MC No.36/2022 and the 2^nd respondent has no objection for quashing the impugned proceeding. He also submits that a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- is paid towards permanent alimony also returned the gold

¶32

¶33

CRL.P No. 100971 of 2022

¶34

ornaments. The 2^nd respondent has acknowledged the receipt of the same.

¶35

Though the offences alleged are non-cognizable and non-compoundable, having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves and the respondent No.2 having no objection for quashing the impugned proceeding, it would be an abuse of process of law, if the proceeding is allowed to continue against the petitioners – accused, since the probability of their conviction is remote and bleak in view of the settlement arrived between the parties. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶38

ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.3/2022 pending

¶39

on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad, is hereby quashed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

BKM

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 142

Sachin S/O Shrikant Hosamani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin S/O Shrikant Hosamani v. the 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

Sri. Praveen S. Reddy Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt. Sunita W/O Bharatkumar Aitawade Vs Malikjan S/O Bhaskar Sannakki

Smt. Sunita W/O Bharatkumar Aitawade Vs Basavaraj W/O Mallappa Yaragatti

Yallareddeppa S/O Eshwarappa Madnoor Vs the Acb Police by Ballari Police Station Ballari

Shri. Fakkiresh S/O Veerappa Baligar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Chandrashekar S/O. Sharanapap Neeralagi Vs Vadeyar Sreedhar S/O Rohith Swamy