Allowed

Lokesh K S v. State by

Karnataka HC4 Oct 2023CRL.P/3461/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC praying for quashing of charge sheets in matrimonial offences and cybercrimes. The court noted that parties had amicably settled the dispute via mediation, with the marriage dissolved. Considering the remote probability of conviction and the settlement, the court held that continuing trials would be an abuse of process and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.8294/2021 and C.C.No.1750/2022 were quashed.

Lokesh K S Vs State by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:35872 CRL.P No. 3461 of 2023 c/w CRL.P No. 4314 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3461 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4314 OF 2023

¶7

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3461 OF 2023: BETWEEN:

¶8

LOKESH K S S/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO. 26, NEXT TO KARNATAKA GRAMINA BANK, KODATHI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 035.

¶9

SMT. SARASWATHAMMA W/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO. 26 NEXT TO KARNATAKA GRAMINA BANK, KODATHI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 035.

¶10

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

¶11

SRI. BABU K S S/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO. 26, NEXT TO KARNATAKA GRAMINA BANK, KODATHI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 035.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH G KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE BY VARTHUR POLICE STATION, MARTHALLI SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:35872 CRL.P No. 3461 of 2023 c/w CRL.P No. 4314 of 2023

¶18

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶19

SMT. D VANDANA W/O LOKESH K S D/O DEVRAJU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT KALLURKRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, DOMMASANDRA, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE 562 125.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M M, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. KIRAN KUMAR H, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN CR.NO.224/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A), 354(A), 504, 506, 509 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT BY THE VARTHUR POLICE, MARATHAHALLI SUB DIVISION AND ETC.

¶23

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4314 OF 2023:

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

SRI BABU K S S/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.26, NEXT TO KARNATAKA GRAMINA BANK, KODATHI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 035. ALSO AT NO.593,NEAR KAVERI GRAMINA BANK, NEAR KODATHIGATE, SARJAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 035.

¶26

…PETITIONER

¶27

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH G KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

STATE BY WHITEFIELD CEN CRIME POLICE STATION DCP WHITEFIELD DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PERSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶30

SMT. D. VANDANA W/O LOKESH K.S, D/O DEVARAJU

¶31

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:35872 CRL.P No. 3461 of 2023 c/w CRL.P No. 4314 of 2023

¶32

AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALLUKRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, DOMMASANDRA, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE- 562 125, ALSO AT NO.289, 4TH WARD, KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, DOMMASANDRA, BANGALORE-562 125.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M M, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. KIRAN KUMAR H, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN CRIME NO.1301/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.66(D) INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT BY THE WHITEFIELD CEN CRIME POLICE DCP WHITEFIELD DIVISION AND ETC.

¶36

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

¶37

ORDER

¶38

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

¶39

Petitioners-accused are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354A, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶40

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

¶41

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:35872 CRL.P No. 3461 of 2023 c/w CRL.P No. 4314 of 2023

¶42

In Crl.P.No.4314/2023

¶43

The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 66D of the Information Technology Act, alleging that petitioner is the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant and has posted obscene messages against the respondent No.2 in the social media.

¶44

Parties are present before this Court and have filed the joint affidavit along with Memorandum of Settlement under Section 89 of CPC read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005.

¶45

The same are placed on record.

¶46

Perusal of the Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the petitioner-accused No.1-husband and defactocomplainant-wife discloses that, defacto-complainant had filed a petition under section 13 (1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, for dissolving her marriage with the accused No.1 on the ground of cruelty, and in the said proceedings, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Bengaluru to explore the possibility of settlement between the parties.

¶47

The parties before the Mediation, amicably resolved the dispute among themselves, and in terms of the settlement the marriage with the defacto-complainant with accused No.1 has been dissolved mutually, and accused No.1 has paid a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards permanent alimony in favour of the defacto-complainant, and further the defacto complainant has

¶48

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:35872 CRL.P No. 3461 of 2023 c/w CRL.P No. 4314 of 2023

¶49

stated that she has no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings.

¶50

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 respondent No.2 having no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings, it would be a futile exercise, if the petitionersaccused 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:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. The Criminal Petitions are allowed;

¶53

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.8294/2021 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, stands quashed in Crl.P.No.3461/2023.

¶54

iii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1750/2022 pending on the file of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stands quashed in Crl.P.No.4314/2023.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Lokesh K S v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh K S v. State by

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

Brainly India Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

K. Sunil Kumar Vs State by Bagalur Police

Mr. Pradeep Vs the State of Karnataka by

C S Sathisha Vs State by

Smt Meenakshi D M Vs Karnataka Lokayuktha

Shri Nagadeep K Vs State of Karnataka