Disposed

K P Chengappa v. State by

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2022CRL.P/3741/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings. The court found that a settlement had been arrived at between the parties in family court, with the terms fulfilled, including payment of consideration. Consequently, the proceedings were terminated as the allegations were not against the State.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition disposed; proceedings in C.C.No.10846/2022 quashed.

K P Chengappa Vs State by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 3741 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3741 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K.P.CHENGAPPA S/O LATE POOVAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶9

SMT.RANI W/O LATE POOVAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

¶10

THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 R/O NO.625, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040.

¶11

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

¶12

SMT.KAVITA B.A., D/O LATE POOVAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O NO.402, 2^ND FLOOR, INDUS CAME BRIDGE LAYOUT INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 038.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI B.A.BELLIAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE BY VIJAYA NAGAR P.S R/P BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶17

¶18

CRL.P No. 3741 of 2020

¶19

HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01.

¶20

SMT.I.A.MANASA D/O I.IYANNA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/O NO.33/37, I MAIN, 9^TH CROSS, BAPUJI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 026.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.S.GURUSWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.20553/2016 REGISTERED BY THE VIJAYANAGAR POLICE, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 504, 506B, 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.20553/2016 pending on the file of the XXIV ACMM Court, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506B r/w. 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No. 3741 of 2020

¶29

During the pendency of this petition, the parties to the lis have arrived at a settlement and file compromise petition before this Court. The parties were also before the family Court in M.C.No.1174/2017 and have filed memorandum of settlement under Section 89 of CPC r/w. Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005, before the family Court, as the dispute between them is amicably settled. The petitioners have also handed over a demand draft and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that other conditions stipulated in the settlement have been fulfilled between the parties.

¶30

The relevant paragraphs of the compromise petition

¶31

reads as follows:

¶32

“COMPROMISE PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

¶33

Xxxxxx

¶34

2. The petitioner No.1, 3 and the Respondent No.2 / Complainant have resolved their issues,

¶35

¶36

CRL.P No. 3741 of 2020

¶37

amicably before the family court at Bangalore in M.C.No.1174/2017, the terms and settlement as follows. The petitioner No.2 is dead.

¶38

3. The Respondent No.2 hereby does withdraw all the allegations made against the petitioners and the Respondent No.2 has agreed not to prosecute / institute any legal proceeding, against the petitioners, and the Respondent No.2 has no objection to quash the proceedings C.C.No.20553/2016 pending on the file of the XXIV ACMM at Bangalore, for offences punishable under sections 498(A), 504 and 506(B) R/w. section 34 of I.P.C.

¶39

4. The petitioner No.1 in consideration of the above has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/(Rupees Three Lakhs only) towards the Marriage expenses of the second respondent, subject to complying with the above terms of the settlement.

¶40

5. The petitioner No.1 has already paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) out of the total consideration agreed, to the 2^nd respondent before family Court on 18/12/2018 in D.D.No.466293, drawn on State Bank of India, R.P.C. Layout, Bengaluru.

¶41

¶42

CRL.P No. 3741 of 2020

¶43

6. The petitioner No.1 today has paid the balance sum of Rupees 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs only) to the 2^nd respondent before this Court vide, D.D.No.809063, drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Infantry Road, Bengaluru.”

¶44

In the light of the terms of the compromise petition and that the terms and conditions of the compromise being fulfilled by the parties, I deem it appropriate to terminate the proceedings against the petitioners, as the allegations are not against the State.

¶45

For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) The criminal petition is disposed.

¶48

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.10846/2022 pending on the file of the VI ACMM Court, Bengaluru, stand quashed.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

NVJ

K P Chengappa v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K P Chengappa v. State 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

Srikantaha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M S Chandrashekar Vs Anti Corruption Bureau

Dr Ravishankar Bhat Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Anil Kumar Vs the Director General

Sri S P Krishna Kumar Vs State by

Sri R N Sreekantaiah Vs State of Karnataka