Allowed

Sri Shivanand M Hiremath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2022CRL.P/849/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed Criminal Petition No. 849 of 2022 quashing proceedings in C.C. No. 51769/2021 for offences under Sections 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, as the parties had reached and fulfilled a settlement agreement terminating their disputes.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 51769/2021 pending before the XXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stand quashed.

Sri Shivanand M Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.849 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SHIVANAND M. HIREMATH S/O MALLIKARJUNA M.HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS OCC.:PRIVATE EMPLOYEE.

¶9

SRI MALLIKARJUNA M. HIREMATH S/O SHIVANANDAYYA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC.RTD.GOVT. EMPLOYEE.

¶10

SMT.KAVITHA HIREMATH W/O SRI MALLIKARJUNA M.HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC. RTD. GOVT. EMPLOYEE.

¶11

ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE R/O NO.03, 1^ST FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, MUNNEKOLALU, BENGALURU – 560 037.

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI JAGADISHGOUD PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MARATHAHALLI POLICE

¶16

¶17

BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU REPTD. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶18

SMT.T.BINDUSHRI W/O SRI SHIVANAND.M. HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC.: SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O.NO.3, 1^st FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, MUNNEKOLALU, BENGALURU – 560 037.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI B.C.CHETAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ADJUDICATION ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XXIX ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.51769/2021 (CR.NO.411/2020) REGISTERED AND CHARGE SHEETED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C. No.51769/2021 pending on the file of the XXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under

¶25

¶26

Sections 498A, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for both the parties in

¶28

unison submit that during the pendency of this petition, the parties to the lis have arrived at settlement and file a memorandum of settlement to that effect. He also submits that the conditions in the memorandum of settlement has been fulfilled.

¶29

The memorandum of settlement, read as follows;

¶30

“MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

¶31

Xxxxxxx

¶32

6. It is pertinent to submit that the Respondent had filed C.C.No.51769/2021 before the XXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mayo Hall Unit, Benglaore his under Sec.498A of I.P.C. read with Section 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act. The second respondent has decided not to contest the aforesaid Criminal case filed against the Petitioners herein and as give her consent to quash the entire proceedings by the order of this Hon’ble Court.

¶33

¶34

7. The first Petitioner has agreed to co-operate with the second respondent in M.C.No.5820/2021, pending before the Hon’ble First Additional Principal Family Judge, At Bangalore, in order to file a Memorandum of Settlement before the Bangalore Mediation Centre and get their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce within ten days from the date of quashing C.C.No.51769/2021 before the XXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mayo Hall Unit, Benglaore.

¶35

8. The parties have to settle all claims against each other either present or in future in M.C.No.5820/2021, pending before the Hon’ble First Additional Principal Family Judge, At Bangalore. They have absolutely no existing or future claims whatsoever against each other thereafter. The first Petitioner and the second respondent shall not interfere in each other’s life in any manner in future.”

¶36

In the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties as afore-extracted and the submission of the learned counsel appearing for both parties that the conditions of settlement are fulfilled, I deem it appropriate to terminate the impugned

¶37

¶38

proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC, as the allegations are not against the State.

¶39

For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶42

(ii) The proceedings in C.C. No.51769/2021 pending on the file of the XXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, stand quashed.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

nvj

¶45

CT:MJ

Sri Shivanand M Hiremath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shivanand M Hiremath v. the 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

Sanjay Vs Harish H

Panchaksharaiah T B Vs State of Karnataka

Sanjay Vs R Arun Kumar

P Harshavardhan Singh Vs Mrs. Sheetal Rajput

Swamy @ Srinivasa Vs the Range Forest Officer

Sri Shakthivelu Vs State of Karnataka