Allowed

Mr B v. Deepak v Smt R Ramya

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2023CRL.P/1766/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two connected criminal petitions, the High Court allowed quashing of miscellaneous proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and an FIR involving offences under IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, noting the dissolution of marriage and mutual settlement between parties resolved the dispute amicably.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of criminal proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and the FIR lodged under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.

Mr B v Deepak Vs Smt R Ramya — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:34671 CRL.P No. 1766 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 457 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1766 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 457 OF 2022

¶5

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1766 OF 2022:

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR B V DEEPAK S/O M VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶8

VENKATESH S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶9

SMT GAYATHRI W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶10

SUKESH A/O NARAYANA JOGI

¶11

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

¶12

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶13

SMT MEGHANA W/O SUKESH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDING AT R/O D5-20 1ST MAIN, B STREET, KUVEMPU NAGAR BENGALURU SOUTH-560026

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. ROHAN S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M R BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SMT. R RAMYA W/O B V DEEPAK

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:34671 CRL.P No. 1766 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 457 of 2022

¶20

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT BALEGARABETTU KADURU KOKKARNE POST UDUPI, UDUPI DIST-576 234.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. HALEEMA AMEEN.,ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.MISC.NO.1/2022 INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT U/S 12 OF THE D.V. ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., UDUPI AND ETC.

¶24

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 457 OF 2022:

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

MR B V DEEPAK S/O M VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC. BUSINESS, D/20, 1ST MAIN B STREET, KUVEMPUNAGAR BENGALURU 560 026.

¶27

MR SUKESH JOGI S/O NARAYANA JOGI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, D/20, 1ST MAIN B STREET, KUVEMPUNAGAR BENGALURU 560 026.

¶28

SMT MEGHANA W/O SUKESH JOGI JOGI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, D/20, 1ST MAIN B STREET, KUVEMPUNAGAR BENGALURU 560 026.

¶29

SMT GAYATHRI W/O M VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC HOME MAKER, D/20, 1ST MAIN B STREET, KUVEMPUNAGAR BENGALURU 560 026.

¶30

MR M VENKATESH S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶31

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:34671 CRL.P No. 1766 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 457 of 2022

¶32

OCC RETIRED REVENUE INSPECTOR D/20, 1ST MAIN B STREET, KUVEMPUNAGAR BENGALURU 560 026.

¶33

…PETITIONERS

¶34

(BY SRI. ROHAN S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BALAKRISHNA M R, ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION UDUPI, UDUPI DISTRICT REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶37

SMT R. RAMYA W/O B V DEEPAK AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT BALEGARABETTU KADURU, KOKKARNE POST UDUPI, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 234.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M M, HCGP FOR R-1; SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶40

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND CONTINUATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.55/2021 DATED 16.12.2021 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT REGISTERED AND BEING INVESTIGATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE IN PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE TRIAL COURT IN PCR.NO.67/2021 AND ETC.

¶41

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

Since the issue involved in these petitions is similar they are taken up together, heard and disposed of by a common order.

¶44

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:34671 CRL.P No. 1766 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 457 of 2022

¶45

In Criminal Petition No.1766/2022:

¶46

The Challenge in this petition is to quash the impugned proceedings in Crl.Misc.NO.1/2022 initiated by respondent No.2 under Section 12 of Protection of Women's from Domestic Violence Act, wherein, it is alleged that the petitioners have subjected the defacto-complainant to cruelty and also to pay the compensation for the injuries caused by the petitioners herein and other relatives.

¶47

In Criminal Petition No.457/2022:

¶48

Petitioners-accused are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, r/w 34 of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶49

The case of the prosecution is that petitionersaccused subjected the informant to cruelty, both mentally and physically, and also a demand was made to bring money from the parental home.

¶50

This Court in Crl.P.No.1766/2022 had referred the matter to the Mediation Centre Udupi, to explore the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties. The parties before the Mediation, amicably resolved the dispute among themselves, and in terms of the settlement, the marriage of the accused No.1 with the informant has been dissolved mutually, and accused No.1 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.7 Lakh

¶51

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:34671 CRL.P No. 1766 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 457 of 2022

¶52

towards permanent alimony to the informant which is evident from the memorandum of settlement under Section 89 of CPC read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005 annexed in Crl.P.No.1766/2022, and further the informant has stated that she has no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings.

¶53

Though the offences alleged against the petitionersaccused are cognizable and non-compoundable, however, having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves, and the informantrespondent No.2 having no objection for quashing the impugned FIR, it would be a futile exercise, if the petitionersaccused are subjected to investigation, since the probability of police filing the charge sheet is remote and bleak in view of the settlement. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i. The Criminal Petitions are allowed;

¶56

ii. The impugned proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.1/2022 pending on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge, and JMFC at Udupi stands quashed in Crl.P.No.1766/2022.

¶57

iii. The impugned FIR in Crime No.55/2021 registered by the Women Police Station, Udupi, stands quashed in Crl.P.No.457/2022.

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:34671 CRL.P No. 1766 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 457 of 2022

¶59

¶60

iv. Liberty is reserved with respondent No.2 to revive the petition, in the event, the terms and conditions of the settlement have not been honoured with.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

Mr B v. Deepak v Smt R Ramya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr B v. Deepak v Smt R Ramya

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

Sudheesh R Vs the Station House Officer

Shri S G Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Naval Kishore Maloo Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shivakumar. R Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Doddaballapur Prasanna Achutarao Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shilpashree Vs the State of Karnataka