Allowed

Amit Kumar Shetty v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2022CRL.P/4132/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal complaints filed against petitioners for matrimonial disputes under IPC and Domestic Violence Act. Proceeding was quashed after parties amicably settled via Family Court decree, satisfying ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; impugned proceedings in C.C. No.3378/2015 quashed subject to compliance of settlement terms.

Amit Kumar Shetty Vs State of Karnataka by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4132 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

AMIT KUMAR SHETTY S/O T JAGANATH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT H.NO.2-45/44 SRI BRAMARI, HEMAVATHI NAGAR ALAPE VILLAGE MANGALORE, DK PINCODE-575022.

¶9

JAGANATH SHETTY

¶10

ITTAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT H.NO.2-45/44 SRI BRAMARI, HEMAVATHI NAGAR ALAPE VILLAGE MANGALORE, DK PINCODE-575022.

¶11

SMT SUSHEELA SHETTY W/O T JAGANATH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A H.NO.2-45/44 SRI BRAMARI, HEMAVATHI NAGAR ALAPE VILLAGE MANGALORE, DK PINCODE-575022.

¶12

¶13

ARPEETH SHETTY D/O T JAGANATH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT H.NO.2-45/44 SRI BRAMARI, HEMAVATHI NAGAR ALAPE VILLAGE MANGALORE, DK PINCODE-575022. ...PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANGALORE RURAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

SMT GAYATHRI SHETTY W/O AMIT KUMAR SHETTY D/O GANAPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O MATHRUKRUPA DEBBELE, BAKIMAAR HAREKALA, MANGALORE DK DISTRICT

¶18

PINCODE-575016. …RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT.LEENA C SHIVAPURMATH, HCGP FOR R1, SRI ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2015 OF III J.M.F.C., MANGALORE FOR TAKING THE COGNIZANCE FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 323,313,498(A),506 AND 504 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT IN C.C.NO.3378/2015 AND ALSO TO QUASH THE ENTIRE

¶22

¶23

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.3378/2015 FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 313, 498(A), 506 AND 504 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE III J.M.F.C., MANGALORE D.K.

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The parties are present through video conferencing.

¶27

The 2nd respondent lodged the first information

¶28

report against the petitioner alleging that she was subjected to cruelty and also demanded dowry. The jurisdictional police registered the case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 313, 498(A), 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P Act. The jurisdictional police after investigation filed a charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences alleged against them. Hence, this petition.

¶29

3. The 2nd respondent had filed a petition for dissolving

¶30

her marriage with the 1st petitioner before the Family Court, D K, Mangalore. In the said proceedings, the 1st petitioner and

¶31

¶32

the 2nd respondent have amicably settled the matter and by compromise decree, the marriage of the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner was dissolved subject to certain terms and conditions. One of the conditions imposed was that the 1st petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakhs towards alimony in favour of the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent was required to withdraw the criminal case filed against the petitioners. Though some of the offences are cognizable and non-bailable, having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and also the victim having no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings and so as to meet the ends of justice, it is appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶35

ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.3378/2015

¶36

pending on the file of the III JMFC Court, Mangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 313, 498(A), 504, 506

¶37

¶38

read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P Act, is hereby quashed.

¶39

This order is subject to compliance of terms and conditions

¶40

contained in the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

BKM

Amit Kumar Shetty v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Shetty v. State of Karnataka 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

M/S. Gm Infinite Dwelling (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner

Smt J Jayamma Vs the Zilla Panchayath

Sri Yogesh M S Vs State by Its

Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nilakanta T Y Vs the State of Karnataka

A.S Bheemappa Vs P.S Guruprasad