Allowed

Gopikrishna J v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC31 May 2023CRL.P/3145/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This habeas corpus petition sought quashing of charges against petitioners for dowry harassment and cruelty. The court accepted a settlement between the husband (Petitioner 1) and wife (Respondent 2), which explicitly sought withdrawal of the petition. Due to the wife's absence from court but clear settlement terms, the court terminated proceedings and quashed the charges.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition was disposed of and proceedings in Crime No.139/2020 against petitioners were quashed on acceptance of the compromise settlement.

Gopikrishna J Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 3145 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3145 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GOPIKRISHNA J., S/O. JAGADEESAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶9

GEETHA, W/O. JAGADEESAN S., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶10

JAGADEESAN S., S/O. LATE SUNDER MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ARUN, S/O. KANDASWAMI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶14

RAVI, S/O. CHOKKALINGAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶15

ALL ARE R/O NO-27/41, FIRST MAIN ROAD, POOMPUHAR NAGAR, KOLATH, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU - 600 099.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 3145 of 2022

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION, JAYANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-CITY, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU - 01.

¶22

DIVYA BABU, W/O. GOPIKRISHNA J., AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O NO.53/1, MANIPUSHPAM, APARTMENT, 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, NAGAPPA BLOCK, SREERAMPURA, BENGALURU CITY - 560 021.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. M. SHARASS CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DTED 15.03.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/BASAVANGUDI POLICE STATION IN CR. NO. 139/2020 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 5 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A), 506 OF IPC AND ALSO U/S 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961 AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

3 - CRL.P No. 3145 of 2022

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crime No.139/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 506 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶30

During the pendency of this petition, it transpires that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were before the Family Court at Chennai in O.P.No.788/2023 in which, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have parted ways by drawing up certain conditions of such settlement. Paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of the said settlement read as follows:

¶31

“15. The petitioners states that the second petitioner agrees to withdraw/compromise the criminal proceedings bearing FIR No.139 of 2020, now pending in CC No.16037/2021 against the first petitioner and his family members, on the file of the Hon’ble 37^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

¶32

16. The first petitioner has also aggress to withdraw the Crl.P.No.3145 of 2022 filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.”

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 3145 of 2022

¶35

This Court, on 26.05.2023, had passed the

¶36

following order:

¶37

“Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the husband and wife has parted ways by filing a petition under Section 130B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The compromise petition also recognizes the closure of the present proceedings at paragraph No.15.

¶38

There is no representation on behalf of the 2^nd respondent.

¶39

List the matter on 31.05.2023 as a last chance. In the event the 2^nd respondent would not be represented, appropriate orders would be passed on the aforesaid settlement.

¶40

In the light of the aforesaid settlement, further proceedings in C.C.No.16037 of 2021 pending on the file of XXXVII Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru shall remain stayed. I.A.No.1/2022 is allowed.”

¶41

There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 even today.

¶42

Therefore, accepting the contention of petitioner No.1 and on perusal of the settlement arrived at between

¶43

¶44

CRL.P No. 3145 of 2022

¶45

petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, I deem it appropriate to

¶46

terminate the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶47

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. Criminal Petition stands disposed.

¶50

ii. Proceedings pending in Crime No.139/2020, qua the petitioners, stand quashed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Gopikrishna J v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopikrishna J 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

Mrs Richa Saxena Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Sri Shivanaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Prabhadevi Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Jayant Srikumar Gauri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Lal Sab @ Maroof Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Praveen Surendiran Vs State of Karnataka