Allowed

Balasubramanya D R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 May 2022CRL.P/3018/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 498A, 307 IPC. Court observed a settlement between husband and wife in civil proceedings and directed notice to wife who did not appear, noting the matter was already settled.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in S.C.No.235/2021 quashed qua petitioners, i.e., husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law.

Balasubramanya D R Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | 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.3018 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 & 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

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, HASSAN REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU-560001 2. 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

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

[BY SRI.K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 23.05.2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT]

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.235/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 307, 506, 107, 108 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HASSAN VIDE ANNEXURE - E.

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Mohan Kumar D.,

¶24

appearing for the petitioners and Sri.K.S.Abhijith, learned HCGP for respondent No.1.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners takes

¶26

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.1615/2020 as well.

¶27

Noticing the settlement, this Court had

¶28

directed issuance of notice to respondent No.2 – wife. The notice is served upon the respondent and an affidavit to that effect is also filed by the petitioners and respondent No.2 has not appeared before the Court despite service of notice, ostensibly on the score that the

¶29

¶30

matter has been settled before the Civil Court in M.C.No.117/2020.

¶31

The settlement insofar as it is germane for

¶32

the present lis, reads as follows:

¶33

“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

¶34

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. ”

¶35

In the light of the settlement arrived at

¶36

between the parties and the same also recorded closure

¶37

¶38

of the case in C.C.No.1615/2020, which is later committed to the Sessions Judge in

¶39

S.C.No.235/2021, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the first petitioner – husband, petitioner No.2 – father-in-law and petitioner 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 498A of IPC.

¶40

For the aforesaid reasons, the criminal is disposed. Proceedings in S.C.No.235/2021 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Hassan stands quashed, qua the petitioners.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Balasubramanya D R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasubramanya D R 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

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 Smt Pooja v