Allowed

Sri. Murali Krishna T v. the State Represented by

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2022CRL.P/2799/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. A settlement between the parties indicated the second respondent had no objection to quashing. The Court held that as the possibility of conviction was remote, further trial would be futile and an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.54031/2018 pending on the file of X Addl. CMM Court, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru are quashed.

Sri. Murali Krishna T Vs the State Represented by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2799 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI. MURALI KRISHNA T., S/O NAGESHWARA RAO T, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.202, MARUTHI PLAZA, RAJAPANGAL ROAD, LAWYERPET, ORNGALE, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT – 523 002, ANDRAPRADESH.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.S.NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE REPRESENTED BY K.R.PURAM POLICE, BANGALURU – 560 036.

¶13

SMT. S. APARNA, W/O SRI.MURALI KRISHNA, D/O SUBBARAM S, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, GAURAV NILAYA, 2^ND B CROSS, GOKULA EXTINCTION, DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD, NEAR STATE BANK OF INDIA, BANGALORE – 560 036.

¶14

¶15

AND ALSO PARAMAGNET ADDRESS OF THE 2^ND RESPONDENT (MOTHER HOUSE)

¶16

SMT. S. APARNA, D/O SUBBARAM S, W/O MURALI KRISHNA T., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OJALAHALLI VILLAGE, SOMAYAJALAHALLI POST, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 135. AND ALSO PRESENT WORKING COMPANY ADDRESS OF THE ACCUSED SMT. S. APARNA, D/O SUBBARAM S., W/O MURALI KRISHNA T, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, CAPGEMNINI BUSINESS SERVICES (INDIA) LTD., # 73/1, EMPLOEY ID NO.-56554, GARUDACHARPALYA, MAHADEVAPURA POST, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 048.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R1)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 08.06.2016, IN CR.NO.322/2016, C.C.NO.54031/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE K.R.PURAM POLICE JURISDICTION 10^TH A.C.M.M., COURT, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU CITY, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Charge sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 alleging that the informant was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner-accused. The police after investigation have filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences and the learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons. Hence, this petition.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner for dissolving his marriage with the informant, the dispute is amicably settled between the parties and in terms of the settlement, the second respondent has agreed that she has no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings.

¶24

¶25

Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶26

appearing for respondent No.1-State submits that in view of the settlement arrived between the parties, the impugned proceedings may be quashed.

¶27

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

¶28

A perusal of the memorandum of

¶29

settlement entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent in M.C.No1997/2016 clearly discloses that the second respondent has no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings. In view of the same, the impugned proceedings requires to be quashed, since it would futile exercise if the petitioner is subjected to trial and it would be abuse of process of law, since the possibility of conviction of the petitioner-accused is remote and bleak. Accordingly I pass the following:

¶30

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶33

ii. The impugned proceedings in

¶34

C.C.No.54031/2018 pending on the file of X Addl. CMM Court, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

RKA

Sri. Murali Krishna T v. the State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Murali Krishna T v. the State Represented by

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

Venkata Reddy Vs G Chandrashekar Reddy

Vishal Amla Vs State of Karnataka

Godrej Agrovet Limited Vs Mr. Niraj Narayan Dutta

Sri Mohd. Akbar @ Sunnusab Vs District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner

Shivu @ Shiiv Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Vishalakshamma Vs State by Konanakunte Police Station