Allowed

Harsha Singal Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2023CRL.P/4850/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crim. P.No.4850 of 2023 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against a cognizance order in matrimonial and dowry offence cases. The High Court, observing an amicable settlement between parties and remote probability of conviction, quashed the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.7573/2023 filed against petitioners on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore stands quashed.

Harsha Singal Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:37639 CRL.P No. 4850 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4850 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

HARSHA SINGAL REDDY, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O S R K REDDY (SINGALA REDDY RAMA), R/AT NO.5/13, VISHAL KHAND, GOMTINAGAR LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH - 226 010.

¶8

SARASWATI SINGAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O S R K REDDY (SINGALA REDDY RAMA), R/AT NO.5/13, VISHAL KHAND, GOMTINAGAR LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH - 226 010.

¶9

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

¶10

SRK REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O SINGALA REDDY RAMA, R/AT NO.5/13, VISHAL KHAND, GOMTINAGAR LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH - 226 010.

¶11

SIDHARTH SIGNAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O SINGALA REDDY RAMA, R/AT NO.5/13, VISHAL KHAND, GOMTINAGAR LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH - 226 010.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. SAMPREETH V, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY EAST ZONE WOMEN P.S, BENGALURU - 560 005,

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:37639 CRL.P No. 4850 of 2023

¶17

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

SMT. SUJITHA ANNEM, W/O HARSHA SINGAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, @ NO. B204, VITCORIAN HAVEN APARTMENT, DOMLUR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 071

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R1; MISS. LIZ ODELLA D'SOUZA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE ORDER DATED 21.03.2023 BY THE 6TH A.C.M.M, PENDING AT THE 6TH A.C.M.M, BENGALURU WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶24

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

¶25

The parties are present before the Court and have filed an application under Section 320(2) read with Section 428

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:37639 CRL.P No. 4850 of 2023

¶28

of the Cr.P.C. for compounding of offences stating that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves and in terms of settlement, respondent No.2 has stated that she has no objection for quashing the impugned FIR.

¶29

Application is placed on record.

¶30

Though the offences alleged are cognizable and non compoundable, however, having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves, it would be a futile exercise, if the petitioners are subjected to trial, since the probability of the conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak in view of the settlement. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

a. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶33

b. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.7573/2023 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore stands quashed.

¶34

¶35

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 138 CT: BHK

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

Harsha Singal Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harsha Singal Reddy 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

Somashekara Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Naveen H.S Vs the State Represented by

Mr. Suhas. T. N. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Khamrunnisa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. P Kiran Vs Mr. Dinesh Solanki

Sri. Shivaraj Kumar Vs State of Karnataka