Allowed

Sumanth K Korishettar v. State by

Karnataka HC3 Oct 2023CRL.P/6574/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the High Court of Karnataka quashed prosecution proceedings against petitioners in C.C.No.27041/2019. The court allowed the petition based on a joint settlement memo and express consent from the complainant. Conditions for payment and return of property were laid down with a proviso for revival of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.27041/2019 regarding offences under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of DP Act, 1961 are quashed.

Sumanth K Korishettar Vs State by — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:35773 CRL.P No. 6574 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6574 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SUMANTH K.KORISHETTAR S/O. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT MAIN ROAD, SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA-577429.

¶8

SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI CHANDRASHEKAR KORISHETTOR W/O. CHANDRASHEKAR KORISHETTOR, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT MAIN ROAD, SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA-577429.

¶9

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SMT. SUCHETHA W/O. MAHESH AMMINABHAVI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO.14, BHUS GALLI, MANGALWARPET, DHARWAD-580001.

¶11

SMT. SARITHA V.BALLOLLI W/O. VEERABHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. HIG 4, FLAT NO.102, AKSHAYA PARK, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030.

¶12

SMT. SAHANA P.BALLOLLI W/O. PRASHANTH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. B.201, MANTRI ALPYNE APARTMENT, DR. VISHNUVARDHAN ROAD,

¶13

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:35773 CRL.P No. 6574 of 2020

¶14

BANASHANKARI 5^TH STAGE, BENGALURU-560061.

¶15

MURUGESH S/O. KALAYANAPPA NELIVIGI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. RAJENDRA NAGAR, HAVERI-581110.

¶16

NEHA NELAVAGI W/O. MURUGESH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O RAJENDRA NAGAR, HAVERI-581110.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. SATISH R. GIRJI, ADVOCATE FOR P1 TO P5 & P7; VIDE ORDER DATED 08.06.2022 P6 STANDS ABATED)

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE BY EAST ZONE WOMEN POLICE, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560009.

¶21

SMT. SUMA S.WALI W/O. SUMANTH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O NO.3, S.F.S. APARTMENT, 'B' BLOCK, 6^TH 'B' CROSS ROAD, NEAR RELIANCE FRESH, YELAHANKA UPANAGAR, BENGALURU-560064.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. D.S.JAYARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.27041/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU (CHARGE SHEETED FOR

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:35773 CRL.P No. 6574 of 2020

¶27

THE OFFENCES P/UNDER SECTION.498-A AND 506 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER ARE CONCERNED. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioners being the accused Nos.1 to 7 in C.C.No.27041/2019 pending trial before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru have filed this petition challenging the prosecution launched against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶30

When this petition was listed for admission, the parties have filed a joint memo settling the disputes between them which reads as follows:-

¶31

JOINT MEMO

¶32

This memo is filed to bring it to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 upon mutual discussions and negotiations have arrived at a settlement in terms of the conditions narrated hereinabove:-

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:35773 CRL.P No. 6574 of 2020

¶35

CONDITIONS:-

¶36

a) The petitioner No.1 has agreed to withdraw all the cases filed as against the respondent No.2 and simultaneously, the respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw all the cases filed as against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 to 7 herein inclusive of the criminal proceedings registered in C.C.No.27041/2019 pending consideration before the Hon'ble Court of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru only upon receipt of the sum of 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs only) payable by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.2 in full and final settlement out of which, the petitioner No.1 has partially paid the sum of 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) in the following manner:-

¶37

i. Demand Draft (DD) dated 25.09.2023 baring No.155706 amounting for the sum of `9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only) payable by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.2;

¶38

ii. Demand Draft (DD) dated 25.09.2023 bearing No.155707 amounting for the sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) payable by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.2;

¶39

b) With respect to the remaining amount of `25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only), the petitioner No.1 has agreed and consented that the same will be paid to the respondent No.2 on or before 20^th December, 2023 before the Hon'ble Family Court

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:35773 CRL.P No. 6574 of 2020

¶42

and if the petitioner No.1 fails to comply with this Joint Memo then, the respondent No.2 is entitled to seek revival of the order.

¶43

c) The petitioner No.1 has agreed and accordingly, handed over the gold ornaments to the respondent No.2 belonging to her apart from 1.5 grams of gold which the petitioner No.1 has agreed to return the same either in the form of gold or cash on or before 31^st October, 2023 and simultaneously, the respondent No.2 has also agreed and accordingly, handed over all the gold ornaments to the petitioner No.1 belonging to him and thereafter, both the respective parties, upon receipt of the gold ornaments on 02^nd October, 2023, have duly signed on the "Gold Settlement Receipt" with prior checking done at a gold shop mutually.

¶44

d) The respondent No.2 has agreed to hand over the keys of the house premises situated at Sorab to the petitioner No.1 only after the petitioner No.1 clears the remaining sum of `25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) payable to the respondent No.2 as mentioned hereinabove. If the respondent No.2 fails to comply with this Joint Memo then, the petitioner No.1 is entitled to seek revival of the order.

¶45

e) Both the parties have no claims whatsoever apart from the claims made hereinabove and accordingly, after the conditions are complied with in its entirety by both the respective parties, neither of

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:35773 CRL.P No. 6574 of 2020

¶48

them will have any claims as against each other and this settlement will be reported all the other pending cases filed against each other and get them same disposed of in accordance with law.

¶49

In view of what is indicated hereinabove, both the parties shall do and act according to the aforementioned conditions and if either of the parties fail to comply with the same then, this Joint Memo reporting, settlement shall rescind to operate automatically on its own. Further, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have agreed and consented to settle the matter without any force and have voluntarily signed this Joint Memo. Neither the respondent No.2 nor the petitioner Nos.2 to 7 have any claims as against each other whatsoever and thus, their presence is not required for this Joint Memo. Therefore, considering this Joint Memo, it is respectfully prayed to dispose of this present petition as settled and this Joint Memo may kindly be taken on record in the interest of justice and equity."

¶50

The respondent No.2 being the complainant has consented to quash the prosecution of the petitioners in C.C.No.27041/2019.

¶51

In view of the above, this petition is allowed . The impugned prosecution of the petitioners in C.C.No.27041/2019

¶52

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:35773 CRL.P No. 6574 of 2020

¶53

pending trial before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is quashed.

¶54

It is needless to mention that if the petitioners fail to comply with the conditions mentioned in the joint memo, the respondent No.2 shall be entitled to seek revival of this petition.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

PMR

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Sumanth K Korishettar v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumanth K Korishettar 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri Dhanraj Jain Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr Vijayakumar M C Vs State of Karnataka by

Rathish Johnson Vs Inspector

Ravi Vs C R Rangaswamy

Sri.Siddaramu Vs the Chief Engineer

Smt. K.C. Kavitha Vs Smt. B.V. Sunitha