Allowed

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

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2023CRL.P/6746/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings for bigamy and cheating offences. Relying on a joint compromise petition resolving the underlying matrimonial dispute between the petitioners and the respondents, the court held that continuation of trial would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was allowed and the impugned proceedings in CC No.20672/2022 were quashed.

Mr. Suhas. T. N. Vs the State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:37584 CRL.P No. 6746 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6746 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. SUHAS T.N. S/O NAGARAJ Y.N. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT Y.N. MANSION 2ND CROSS, RAILWAY STATION ROAD C.S.I. LAYOUT, TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 102.

¶8

SMT. B.M. SOWMYA SHREE W/O SUHASH T N AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT Y.N. MANSION 2ND CROSS, RAILWAY STATION ROAD C.S.I. LAYOUT, TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 102

¶9

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

¶10

ALSO RESIDING AT D/O B.R. MANJUNATH R/O NO.23, I 'A' MAIN, 3RD CROSS, GOKUL 1ST STAGE, 3RD PHASE, YESHWANTPUR, BANGALORE-560 022.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. M.N. UMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION BENGALURU BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:37584 CRL.P No. 6746 of 2022

¶17

SMT. LAKSHA K W/O SUHAS T N AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.21 ROHINI APARTMENT 2ND CROSS, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU-560 027.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI T. SHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2021, IN PCR.NO.14455/2021, PASSED BY THE VI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 420, 494, 120(B) OF IPC, WITHOUT RECORDING THE SWORN STATEMENT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 120B, 420 of IPC.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that when the appeal filed by the de facto complainant challenging the decree of divorce was pending before this Court, the marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized with petitioner No.2.

¶25

The parties are present before this Court and have filed a joint compromise petition stating that they have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves in MFA No.843/2021. In terms of the settlement, the decree granted by the Family Court has been confirmed and permanent

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37584 CRL.P No. 6746 of 2022

¶27

alimony of Rs.25 lakh is paid to the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant has no objection for quashing the impugned proceeding. The joint memo is placed on record.

¶28

Though the offences are cognizable and noncompoundable, however, having regard to the fact that, the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves, it would be futile exercise if the petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 are subjected to trial, since the probability of their conviction is remote and bleak in view of the settlement. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶31

ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.20672/2022 pending on the file of the learned VI ACMM, Bangalore, is hereby quashed.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

BKM

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Suhas. T. N. 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

Sri.P. Narayanadas Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Syed Sadiq Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Jesus Sudhir Lall Vs State of Karnataka

Somashekara Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Naveen H.S Vs the State Represented by

Sri. Bhargav B M Vs State of Karnataka