Quashed

Sri S B Vijayananda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2023CRL.P/4610/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of trials for Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act offences. The High Court ordered quashing after the wife withdrew allegations and parties filed for mutual consent divorce under Section 13B Hindu Marriage Act, citing the civil nature of disputes.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.11997/2013 for offences under Sections 498A, 506 r.w.s. 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are quashed.

Sri S B Vijayananda Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:19685 CRL.P No. 4610 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4610 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. S.B. VIJAYANANDA S/O SRI. M.S. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.B-104, MANTRI ALPYNE, DR. VISHNUVARDHAN ROAD, BANASHANKARI 5^TH STAGE, BANGALORE-560061.

¶9

SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O SRI. M.S.BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶10

SRI. M.S.BASAVARAJU S/O SRI. MUPPANNA SANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶11

SRI. YOGANAND S/O SRI. M.S.BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. SHIVANNA S/O SRI. MUPPANNA SANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶14

PETITIONERS NO.2-5 ARE RESIDING AT POORNA NILAYA, 12^TH CROSS, VIDYANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA-577203.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. K.B. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY S.H.O BANASHANKARI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:19685 CRL.P No. 4610 of 2018

¶21

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001

¶22

SMT. M.N.PUSHPALATHA W/O SRI. S.B.VIJAYANANDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.62, 1^ST FLOOR, SPOORTHY RESIDENCY, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, MARENAHALLI MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V.S., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶25

SRI. ASHOK K.L., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶26

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT SHO, BANASHANKARI POLICE STATION AT BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETITIONER NO.1-5 IN C.C.NO.11997/2013, BEFORE THE III A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU (CRIME NO.38/2013) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 AND READ WITH SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT.

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The captioned petition is filed by the husband and his family members seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.11997/2013 (Crime No.38/2013) on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:19685 CRL.P No. 4610 of 2018

¶31

34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶32

The petitioner No.1 – husband and respondent No.2 – complainant, who is wife have arrived at an amicable settlement and they have agreed for mutual consent divorce by presenting a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.2923/2023 before the Family Court, Bengaluru. The joint affidavit is placed on record duly signed by the petitioner No.1 – husband and respondent No.2 - complainant.

¶33

Learned counsel for the parties bring to the notice of this Court that the wife has withdrawn all the allegations in 13B petition filed before the Family Court. At para No.6 of the joint affidavit filed before this Court, the respondent No.2 has agreed to co-operate for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.11997/2013.

¶34

Having examined the joint affidavit and also having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent No.2, I am of the view that to meet the ends of justice, the

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:19685 CRL.P No. 4610 of 2018

¶36

proceedings in C.C.No.11997/2013 are liable to be quashed as petitioner No.1 – husband and respondent No.2 - wife have resolved all the differences and have voluntarily come forward to dissolve their marriage by presenting a petition seeking divorce by mutual consent. In the light of the respondent No.2

¶37

wife having unconditionally withdrawn all the allegations made against the petitioner No.1 and his family members, I am of the view that the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In the light of the subsequent development and having regard to the fact that the alleged offences does not fall under the category of heinous and serious offences and since the crime is registered on account of marriage discord between the spouses, the same predominately having the element of civil dispute, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings. If the proceedings are not quashed, the same would cause oppression and prejudice to both the parties.

¶38

For the reasons stated supra, I pass the following

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition is allowed. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.11997/2013 (Crime No.38/2013) on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:19685 CRL.P No. 4610 of 2018

¶42

¶43

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

¶44

Act, 1961 are hereby quashed.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

PMR

¶47

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18

Sri S B Vijayananda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S B Vijayananda 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

Mr. Upadhyay Naman Jaimanbhai Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Sri H M Nataraj Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sundaramma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Yaladalu Manoj Bopaiah Vs State of Karnataka by Madikeri Town Police Station

Smt. Laxmibai Chavan Vs Sri Gautam Chavan

Manjunatha Vs Lakshmamma