Allowed

A Alok Sharma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2023CRL.P/232/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings for offences under Section 498A IPC, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court noted a settlement based on mediation, the complainant's willingness to resume marital life, and the remote probability of conviction.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.7768/2021 pending before VII Addl. C.M.M. stands quashed.

A Alok Sharma Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:36661 CRL.P No. 232 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 232 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

A ALOK SHARMA S/O AJAY KUMAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.87, COOPERATIVE COLONY, ASHOK NAGAR, GAYA, BIHAR STATE 8230 001.

¶9

PRESENT ADDRESS, NO.304, 12TH CROSS, HARSHITA ARCADE, SOMASANDRA PALYA, BANGALORE CITY 560 102.

¶10

AJAY KUMAR SHARMA @ AJAY SHARMA S/O RAMACHARITRA SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.87, COOPERATIVE COLONY, ASHOK NAGAR, GAYA, BIHAR STATE-823 001.

¶11

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

¶12

ADITI SHARMA D/O AJAY KUMAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO.87, COOPERATIVE COLONY, ASHOK NAGAR, GAYA, BIHAR STATE-823 001.

¶13

SMT ANJU BALA SHARMA W/O AJAY KUMAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.87, COOPERATIVE COLONY, ASHOK NAGAR, GAYA, BIHAR STATE-823 001.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. N N DAMODAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36661 CRL.P No. 232 of 2022

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANDEPALYA POLICE STATION, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶19

SMT ANUSHA K W/O ALOK SHARMA, RESIDING AT NO.304, HARSHITHA ARCADE, 12TH CROSS, HARALUKUNTE VILLAGE, SOMASANDRA PALYA, BENGALURU-560 102.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. S N BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS LAUNCHED AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 i.e. THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN C.C.NO.7768/2021 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A),506 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF VII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent No.1-State.

¶26

Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel files power for

¶27

respondent No.2 and the same is placed on record.

¶28

Memo for dispensation is allowed. Appearance of petitioners No.2 to 4 is dispensed with.

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36661 CRL.P No. 232 of 2022

¶30

The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 498A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶31

The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioners subjected the defacto-complainant to cruelty, both mentally and physically, and also a demand was made to bring money from her parental home.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

Petitioner No.1 and the defacto-complainant are present before this Court and they have filed an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. along with joint affidavit enclosing the copy of the Memorandum of Settlement under Section 89 of CPC read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005.

¶34

¶35

The same are placed on record.

¶36

Perusal of the memorandum of settlement reveals that petitioner No.1 had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, in M.C. No.6789/2021 for restitution of Conjugal Rights, and in the said proceedings the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Bengaluru, to explore the possibility of settlement between the parties. The parties before the Mediation, amicably resolved the dispute among themselves and in terms of the settlement, the defactocomplainant has reunited with her husband and leading a

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:36661 CRL.P No. 232 of 2022

¶39

cordial marital life and further she has no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings against the petitioners.

¶40

Though the offences alleged against the petitionersaccused herein are cognizable and non-compoundable, however, having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves, and the respondent No.2 having no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings, it would be a futile exercise, if the petitioners are subjected to trial, since the probability of their conviction 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:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed;

¶43

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.7768/2021 pending on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, stands quashed.

¶44

iii) In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2022, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

A Alok Sharma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Alok Sharma 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

M/S. Sai Nireeha Power Project Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Sjr Prime Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Tammaiah a M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K P Manjuprakash Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Kamala Joshi Vs Mrs. Ranjana Joshi

Mr. Prashant Joshi Vs Mr. Ranjana Joshi