Allowed

Sri.Jagadeesha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2022CRL.P/6369/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners for offences under Sections 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Court quashed proceedings as parties entered a settlement dispensing with criminal liability in a domestic dispute.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 787/2012 stand quashed qua the petitioners and the criminal petition disposed of.

Sri.Jagadeesha Vs State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 6369 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6369 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI JAGADEESHA

¶9

S/O RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶10

SRI RANGAIAH

¶11

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

¶12

SMT.PADMAMMA

¶13

W/O RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶14

SRI NARAYANA

¶15

S/O RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

¶16

SMT. LAKSHMI

¶17

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

¶18

D/O RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶19

SRI NANJUNDASWAMY

¶20

S/O RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶21

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BADANAVALU VILLAGE NANJUNGUD TALUK

¶22

¶23

CRL.P No. 6369 of 2020

¶24

MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 312.

¶25

…PETITIONERS

¶26

(BY SRI GURUDHATTA K., ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶29

REPRESENTED BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER BADAVANALU POLICE STATION NANJUNGUD CIRCLE MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 312.

¶30

SMT.CHANDRIKA

¶31

W/O JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶32

RESIDENT OF CHILLUKANDA VILLAGE HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 110.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.787/2012 (CR.NO.56/2012) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJUNGUD, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

CRL.P No. 6369 of 2020

¶39

ORDER

¶40

This petition is filed calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.787/2012 for the offences

¶41

punishable under Sections 506, 498A r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud.

¶42

The respondent though served is unrepresented before this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1.

¶43

The parties to the lis viz., husband and wife were

¶44

also before the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud in a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in

¶45

Crl.Misc.No.1312/2014 wherein they have entered into a compromise and the 2^nd respondent-complainant has

¶46

¶47

CRL.P No. 6369 of 2020

¶48

received a permanent alimony of Rs.4 lakhs. The settlement recognises closure of the present proceedings as well, the relevant portion of the settlement memo reads

¶49

as follows:

¶50

CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ, JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV, zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ §zÀ£ÀªÁ¼ÀÄ ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj PÉÃ¸ÀÄ £ÀAd£ÀUÀÆr£À 1£ÉÃ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj £ÁåAiÀiÁAiÀÄ®zÀ°è ¹.¹.787/2012 DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj PÉÃ¸ÀÄ ¥ÉArAUï EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj PÉÃ¸À£ÀÄß gÁf ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî®Ä M¦àPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶51

¹.¹.787/2012 gÀ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ²ß¹ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è jmï ¦nµÀ£ï £ÀA.6369/2020 ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj jmï ¦nµÀ£ï £À°è CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀPÁ®vï CxÀªÁ CªÀgÀ ºÁdgÁw K£ÁzÀgÀÄ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EzÀÝ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁdgÁUÀ®Ä ¸ÀºÀ M¦àPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ºÁUÀÆ CzÉÃ jÃw 1£ÉÃ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¹.¹.787/2012 gÀ PÉÃ¹£À®Äè ¸ÀºÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁdgÁV gÁfAiÀiÁUÀ®Ä M¦àPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶52

DzÀÝjAzÀ WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ ¸ÀzÀj CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV G¨sÀAiÀÄvÀægÀgÀÄ ¥Áæyð¹PÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÁÛgÉ.”

¶53

Since the offences alleged against the petitioners

¶54

is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC which is not

¶55

against the State or Society and in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties as aforesaid, I

¶56

¶57

CRL.P No. 6369 of 2020

¶58

deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings qua the petitioners. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) Criminal Petition is disposed.

¶61

(ii) Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.787/2012 pending before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud shall stand quashed qua the petitioners.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

BKP

Sri.Jagadeesha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Jagadeesha 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

Smt B S Susheela Ramamurthy Vs Smt C Devi

Smt B S Susheela Ramamurthy Vs Sri K S Kaushik

Smt. Chandrakala Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B N Govindappa Vs the State by Bagalgunte Police

Apsar Pasha Vs the State by Pulikeshinagar Police Station

Sri Sanyam Gulati Vs State of Karnataka