Quashed

Sri Rahul Chavan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2022CRL.P/2076/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengalura disposed of quashing petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court accepted a joint memo stating the parties had amicably settled the dispute via a Mediation Centre. Seeing as the respondent had no objection to quashing the proceedings, the court quashed the criminal proceedings subject to compli

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.1210/2018 pending before the JMFC 2nd Court at Shivamogga are hereby quashed. This order is subject to compliance of terms and conditions of the settlement arrived between th

Sri Rahul Chavan Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2076 OF 2021 C/W

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8956 OF 2018

¶7

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2076/2021:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI RAHUL CHAVAN S/O SRI. SHYAMA SUNDAR CHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.34, 12TH CROSS, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI NANDA KUMAR B.L., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BY WOMEN'S POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA,

¶14

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶15

BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

SMT. SPOORTHY P.M. D/O SRI P.M. PADMANABHA RAO AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, I FLOOR,

¶17

-:2:-

¶18

"BHAIRASIDDESHWARA NILAYA", B-BLOCK, GOPALA GOWDA EXTENSION, SHIVAMOGGA-577 205.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI SURESH G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE BEFORE HON'BLE J.M.F.C.-II COURT, SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.1210/2018 DATED 23.10.2018, WHICH TOOK COGNIZANCE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

¶22

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8956/2018:

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

SMT. SHYAMALA CHAVAN WIFE OF SRI SHYAMA SUNDAR CHAVAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.34, 12TH CROSS GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032.

¶25

SRI SHAMSUNDER CHAVAN S/O LATE B. GOPAL RAO AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.34, 12TH CROSS GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032.

¶26

...PETITIONERS

¶27

(BY SRI NANDA KUMAR B.L., ADVOCATE)

¶28

-:3:-

¶29

AND:

¶30

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BY WOMEN'S POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA-577 205, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶31

SMT. SPOORTHY P.M. D/O SRI P.M. PADMANABHA RAO AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, I FLOOR, "BHAIRASIDDESHWARA NILAYA", B-BLOCK, GOPALA GOWDA EXTENSION, SHIVAMOGGA-577 205.

¶32

...RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI SURESH G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶34

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE BEFORE THE II-JMFC COURT, SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.1210/2018 DATED 23.10.2018 IN TAKING THE COGNIZANCE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3,4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

¶36

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

-:4:-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

Since both the petitions arise out of the same impugned proceedings, they are taken up together heard and disposed of by a common order.

¶40

Accused No.1 is present online through video conferencing. Accused Nos.2 and 3 and respondent No.2 are present before the Court physically and admit the terms of compromise and its due execution.

¶41

The learned counsel for the parties submit that the compromise may be accepted and the petitions may be disposed in terms of the compromise.

¶42

I have considered the submissions made by he learned counsel for the parties

¶43

The charge sheet is filed against the petitionersaccused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the

¶44

-:5:-

¶45

Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty both mentally and physically and they have demanded her to bring money from her parental home. The learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons to these petitioners-accused. Hence, these petitions.

¶46

The learned counsel for the parties have filed a joint memo signed by the parties respectively stating that the parties have amicably settled the dispute before the Mediation Centre, and as per the terms of the settlement arrived between the parties, respondent No.2 has no objection to quash the impugned proceedings subject to certain terms and conditions.

¶47

Though some of the offences punishable are cognizable and non bailable, having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled the matter between themselves and the respondent No.2 having no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings, it would be a futile

¶48

-:6:-

¶49

exercise, if the accused petitioners-accused are subjected to trial, since the possibility of the conviction of the petitionersaccused is remote and bleak. Hence, the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioners-accused requires to be quashed.

¶50

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. Criminal Petitions are disposed of.

¶53

ii. The proceedings in C.C.No.1210/2018, pending

¶54

on the file of the JMFC 2nd Court at Shivamogga are hereby quashed.

¶55

This order is subject to compliance of terms and conditions of the settlement arrived between the parties.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Sri Rahul Chavan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rahul Chavan 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 Ramanjinappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Dharmappa N N Vs State of Karnataka

Sri a Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Kamlesh Hakumatrai Thakur Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Vijayalaxmi Vs Miss Sandhya Kiran

Smt. Maheshwari Dhongadi Vs Sri. Narayankumar Raibagi