Allowed

Nagarjuna M v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2023CRL.P/6048/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR alleging offences u/s 323, 420, 498A, 504 IPC and s. 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that since the parties amicable resolved the dispute and the marriage was dissolved mutally with the wife agreeing to withdraw allegations, investigation would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR and proceedings in C.C. No. 332/2023 stood quashed as they related to the petitioners.

Nagarjuna M Vs State of Karnataka by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43411 CRL.P No. 6048 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6048 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NAGARJUNA M S/O M MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT C/O RAVINDRA REDDY BUILDING PERESANDRA CROSS, GUDIBANDE ROAD CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 104.

¶9

PRESENTLY R/AT WARD NO. 24 NPO RAOD, BEHIND BALAJI TALKIES CHIKKABALLAPURA 562 101.

¶10

M MUNIRAJU S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT WARD NO. 24, NPO ROAD BEHIND BALAJI TALKIES CHIKKABALLAPURA 562 101.

¶11

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

¶12

(BY SRI. NAGABHUSHANA REDDY K, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PERESANDRA POLICE STATION GUDIBANDE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU 560 001.

¶16

MAMATHA DEV AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS W/O NAGARJUN C.M

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:43411 CRL.P No. 6048 of 2022

¶19

R.AT C/O RAVINDRA REDDY BUILDING PERESANDRA CROSS, GUDIBANDE ROAD CHIKKABALLAPURA 562 104.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. RAVICHANDRA M R, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE ABOVE PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.117/2022 OF PERESANDRA POLICE STATION, GUDIBANDE CIRCLE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C., GUDIBANDE, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 420, 498A, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The registration of the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 420, 498A and 504 r/w 34 of IPC 420, 493, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is impugned in this petition.

¶26

2. The 2^nd respondent lodged the FIR alleging that the petitioners herein subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty both mentally and physically, and also a demand was made to bring money from her parental home, and it was also alleged that petitioner-accused No.1 solemnized the marriage with the 2nd respondent -informant stating that they own properties worth 50 crores.

¶27

The parties are present before this Court and they have filed a memo enclosing a copy of the memorandum of

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:43411 CRL.P No. 6048 of 2022

¶30

settlement under Section 89 of CPC read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005.

¶31

The memo is placed on record.

¶32

Perusal of the memorandum of settlement indicated that the respondent No.2 had filed a petition in M.C.No.983/2023 under Section 13(1) (i-a) for dissolving her marriage with the petitioner-accused No.1 on the ground of cruelty. The matter was referred to the Mediation Center, Bengaluru to explore the possibility of settlement between the parties. The parties before the Mediation amicably resolved the dispute among themselves and in terms of the settlement, their marriage has been dissolved mutually and the respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw all the allegations against the petitioners and she has no objections for quashing the impugned proceedings.

¶33

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 FIR, it would be a futile exercise, if the petitioners are subjected to investigation, since the probability of Police filing the charge sheet is remote and bleak in view of the settlement. Therefore, the continuation of the investigation will be an abuse of process of law.

¶34

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:43411 CRL.P No. 6048 of 2022

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed;

¶39

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.117/2022 registered by the Gudibande Police Station, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jn.Dn.)& JMFC at Gudibande, Chikkaballapura, stands quashed.

Sd/JUDGE

NC: 2023:KHC:43411 CRL.P No. 6048 of 2022

¶44

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶45

[NAGARJUNA M AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AND ANOTHER]

¶46

HCJ

¶47

19.12.2023

¶48

(VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶49

ORDERS ON 'FOR BEING SPOKEN TO'

¶50

At page No.4, operative portion of the order i.e., para (ii), is to be substituted with the following:

¶51

(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.332/2023 (Crime No.117/2022 of Peresandra Police Station, Gudibande Circle, Chikkaballapura) pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Gudibande, Chikkaballapura, insofar as it relates to petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 420, 498A, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, stands quashed.

¶52

This order to be read in conjunction with the order dated

¶53

21.11.2023.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

VP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Nagarjuna M v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagarjuna M v. State of Karnataka 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

Mohammad Ali, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Annapurna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Pradeep Kumar Shekar Vs State of Karnataka

Raghuraj @ Raghu Vs State of Karnataka

Manjunatha @ Anali Manja Vs State of Karnataka

Edward Makri Desouza Vs the State of Karnataka