Allowed

Balasubramanya D R v. Smt Pooja v

Karnataka HC23 May 2022CRL.P/3014/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the proceedings in a criminal matter framed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., relying on a settlement between the parties and the closure of the cognizant criminal case, thereby disposing of the case against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.19/2021 before the VI Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hassan are quashed qua the petitioners.

Balasubramanya D R Vs Smt Pooja v — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MAY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3014 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

BALASUBRAMANYA D. R S/O RAMESH D.V AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS ASSISTANT AUDITOR, 4^TH FLOOR, AUDIT BHAVAN, A G OFFICE (G AND S.S.A) BANGALORE-560001

¶9

RAMESH D V AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22, “GAGANA NILAYA”, VIVEK NAGAR, HASSAN-573202

¶10

PUTTAMMA W/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22, “GAGANA NILAYA”, VIVEK NAGAR HASSAN-573002

¶11

¶12

MOHAN KUMAR S/O RAMESH D V AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SUB-INSPECTOR ALASURU GATE POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560002

¶13

... PETITIONERS

¶14

[BY SRI.MOHAN KUMAR D., ADV.]

¶15

AND

¶16

SMT POOJA V W/O BALASUBRAMANYA C/O SRI VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT “RAJATH NILAYA”, 13^TH CROSS, HEMAVATHI NAGARA HASSAN-573202

¶17

... RESPONDENT

¶18

[V/O. DTD. 23.05.2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT]

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.MISC.NO.19/2021 FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE LEARNED VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HASSAN U/S 12 OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Mohan Kumar D., appearing for the petitioners.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners takes this Court through the settlement arrived at between the parties i.e., husband and wife in M.C.No.117/2020, wherein a term of settlement was closure of subject C.C.No.1899/2021 as well.

¶25

Noticing the settlement, this Court had directed issuance of notice to respondent – wife. The notice is served upon the respondent and an affidavit to that effect is also filed by the petitioners and respondent has not appeared before the Court despite service of notice, ostensibly on the score that the matter has been settled before the Civil Court in M.C.No.117/2020.

¶26

The settlement insofar as it is germane for the present lis, reads as follows:

¶27

¶28

“5. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ºÁ¸À£ÀzÀ 4 £ÉÃ C¢üPÀ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üÃ±ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ eÉ.JA.J¥sï.¹. (Q.«.) gÀªÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå ¹¹.1899/2021 ºÁUÀÆ Qæ«Ä¸ï.19/2021 ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî®Ä JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ M¦àgÀÄvÁÛgÉ

¶29

CzÉÃ jÃw CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ºÁ¸À£ÀzÀ 4 £ÉÃ C¢üPÀ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üÃ±ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ eÉ.JA.J¥sï.¹. (Q.«.) gÀªÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå ¹¹.1615/2020 ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî®Ä CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ M¦àgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀgÀÄ M§âgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯ÉÆ§âgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ J¯Áè DgÉÆÃ¥À D¥ÁzÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä G¨sÀAiÀÄvÀægÀÄ M¦àzÀÄÝ, E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ jÃwAiÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¥À, ¥ÀævÁågÉÆÃ¥À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D¥ÁzÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ EgÀ®Ä M¦àgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ”

¶30

In the light of the settlement arrived at

¶31

between the parties and the same also recorded closure of the case in C.C.No.1899/2021, which is later committed to the Sessions Judge in

¶32

Crl.Misc.No.19/2021, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the first petitioner – husband, petitioner No.2 – father-in-law and petitioner

¶33

¶34

No.3 – mother-in-law and petitioner No.4 – brother-inlaw as the dispute revolves around the allegations against the husband and in-laws with regard to ingredients of Section 12 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶35

For the aforesaid reasons, the criminal is disposed. Proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.19/2021 on the file of the VI Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hassan stands quashed, qua the petitioners.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Balasubramanya D R v. Smt Pooja v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasubramanya D R v. Smt Pooja v

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

Shashi Poojari @ Shadow @ Shashikumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K M Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Harisha C S Vs State of Karnataka

Atma Sudhir Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Arun Kumar Vs the State of Karantaka

Balasubramanya D R Vs State of Karnataka