Quashed

Rajesh R v. State of Karnataka by Police Inspector

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2022CRL.P/3514/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498A IPC, 506 IPC, 34 IPC, and 3, 4 of the DP Act. The court accepted that the parties settled in a Family Court matter, where the respondent agreed to close the criminal case in view of the compromise.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition disposed; proceedings in C.C.No.11074/2016 quashed qua the petitioners.

Rajesh R Vs State of Karnataka by Police Inspector — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 3514 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3514 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAJESH R., S/O LATE B.RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶9

SMT.JAYAMMA

¶10

W/O LATE B.RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶11

SMT.MAMATHA W/O HARIVIJAY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.65, 4^TH MAIN, 1^ST CROSS KOTTANURU DINNE J.P.NAGAR, 8^TH STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶18

BY POLICE INSPECTOR

¶19

¶20

CRL.P No. 3514 of 2022

¶21

KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT POLICE STATION BENGALURU NOW REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶22

SMT.NALINA C.N., D/O C.D.NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.3173, PIPELINE ROAD, K.S.LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 078

¶23

PRESENTLY R/AT NO.31, 2^ND CROSS SANNAKKIBAYALU VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 079.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1; SMT.TASNEEM JAHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.S.RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.11074/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 30th ACMM, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 506, 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT.

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This petition is filed calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.11074/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections

¶30

506, 498A, 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 3514 of 2022

¶33

Prohibition Act, 1961 pending before the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶34

The parties to the lis were also before the Family Court in M.C.No.5279/2015 wherein both the parties have settled the dispute amongst themselves and filed a memorandum of settlement for dissolution of marriage, which also recognises closure of the present proceedings as well. The settlement reads as follows:

¶35

8. The petitioner states that he has filed Crl.A.No.722/2020 before CCH-53, Bengaluru against the respondent herein challenging the order passed in Crl.Misc.4/2016, by MMTC-V, Bengaluru. In view of this settlement, the petitioner has agreed to withdraw the same.

¶36

9. The respondent states that she has filed C.C.No.11074/2016 pending before 30^th ACMM, Bengaluru against the petitioner and others herein for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and also filed Ex.No.162/2021 pending before Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in respect of the interim maintenance passed in the present case i.e., M.C.No.5279/2015. In view of this

¶37

¶38

CRL.P No. 3514 of 2022

¶39

settlement, the respondent has agreed to withdraw Ex.No.162/2021 and also has agreed to cooperate in closing/quashing C.C.No11074/2016, in accordance with law.”

¶40

Since the offence alleged against the petitioners is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, which is not against the State or Society and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties as aforesaid, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings pending against the petitioners. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) Criminal Petition is disposed.

¶43

(ii) Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.11074/2016 pending before the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru shall stand quashed qua the petitioners.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

BKP

Rajesh R v. State of Karnataka by Police Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh R v. State of Karnataka by Police Inspector

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 Anil Kumar Vs the Director General

Sri S P Krishna Kumar Vs State by

Sri R N Sreekantaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Madan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M K Keshava Murthy Vs Master Kamal Nayan M K

Mr Saibaba Vs State by Cottonpet Police Station Bengaluru City