Quashed

Sri. S. Manohar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2023CRL.P/2541/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Court accepted that parties settled amicably and divorced by mutual consent, deciding the offences were not against society and proceedings should be obliterated.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition disposed; Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.126/2018 quashed qua the petitioners; I.A.No.1 of 2023 disposed.

Sri. S. Manohar Vs State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:21539 CRL.P No. 2541 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2541 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. S.MANOHAR S/O. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶9

SMT. SUKANYA W/O. SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶10

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

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 594, KERGALLI MAIN ROAD DATTAGALLI, 3^RD STAGE KANAKADASANAGAR MYSURU – 570 010.

¶12

(BY SMT. GAYATHRI T. N., ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

BY SHO, WOMEN P.S., MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY GOVT. PLEADER HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:21539 CRL.P No. 2541 of 2023

¶19

SMT. SOUMYA A. S., W/O. MANOHAR. S AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.276, 9^TH CROSS K.C. LAYOUT MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 010.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.1/2017 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Dn.) AND JMFC MYSURU IN C.C.NO.126/2018 AGAINST THE P/U/S.498-A,504 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF DP ACT.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.126/2018 (Crime No.1 of 2017) for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶26

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties to the lis have settled the dispute amicably amongst themselves and in this regard have filed a memo reporting settlement

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:21539 CRL.P No. 2541 of 2023

¶29

before this Court. The parties were also before the Family Court, Mysuru in M.C.No.1009 of 2022 wherein the marriage is dissolved drawing up certain conditions, one such condition is closure of the present proceedings. The condition insofar as it relates to closure of the present proceedings reads as follows:

¶30

“4. Further, it is stated that the petitioners decided to get their marriage dissolved amicably by decree of divorce by mutual consent under the following terms and conditions.

¶31

a. The marriage between the petitioners is irretrievably broken down and there is no chance for them to join together to lead a marital life.

¶32

b. The 1^st petitioner who has filed a criminal case against the 2^nd petitioner in C.C.No.126/2018 under sec.498(A) I.P.C. read with sec 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of VII Addl. Sr. Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, and has undertaken to assist the 2^nd petitioner in getting the matter closed.

¶33

c. The 1^st petitioner had filed a petition under sec. 125 Cr.P.C. against the 2^nd petitioner claiming for herself, minor petitioner daughter in Crl.Mis.No.14/2017 on the file of IV Addl. Prl. Family Court, Mysuru, wherein the 1^st petitioner did not press the petition for maintenance for herself but continued the petition for the maintenance of minor daughter which came to be allowed on 08.04.2019 awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- from the date of petition till she marries or she gets gainful job. The RPFC filed by the 2^nd petitioner in RPFC No.91/2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka came to be dismissed on merits on 10.12.2020.”

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:21539 CRL.P No. 2541 of 2023

¶36

Since the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and other offences, which are not against the State or the Society, and in the light

¶37

of the settlement arrived at between the parties as aforesaid, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings pending against the petitioners.

¶38

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) Criminal Petition is disposed.

¶41

(ii) Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.126/2018 pending before the VII Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore stands quashed qua the petitioners.

¶42

Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2023 also stands disposed.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

BKP

¶45

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3 CT:SS

Sri. S. Manohar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. S. Manohar 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

Mr. Arun Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T.P. Vasanth Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Thimmaiah C U Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Zakirunnisa Vs Shabnam Banu

Ramesh Vs Smt Pushpa T v