Allowed

Sri. Bhargav B M v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2023CRL.P/6945/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition to quash proceedings for voyeurism and dowry harassment. The court quashed charges as the parties had amicably settled their disputes and filed an application under Section 320 r/w 420 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in S.C.No.560/2023 stand quashed. In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2023 stands disposed of.

Sri. Bhargav B M Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:37359 CRL.P No. 6945 of 2023

¶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 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6945 OF 2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. BHARGAV B M S/O MRUTHYUNJAYA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, WARD NO.22, SULIBELE ROAD, SHANTINAGAR SOUTH, DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.

¶7

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶8

SRI MRUTHYUNJAYA S/O M CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, WARD NO.22, SULIBELE ROAD, SHANTINAGAR SOUTH, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

¶9

SMT. M. LAKSHMI W/O SRI MRUTHYUNJAYA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, WARD NO.22, SULIBELE ROAD, SHANTINAGAR SOUTH, DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.

¶10

SMT. GEETHA B M W/O AJAY G D/O MRUTHYUNJAYA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, WARD NO.22, SULIBELE ROAD, SHANTINAGAR SOUTH, DEVANAHALLI

¶11

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:37359 CRL.P No. 6945 of 2023

¶12

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110

¶13

MARRIED AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.807, 5TH MAIN, SBI STAFF COLONY, HOSAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 026.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI SAMPATH BAPAT, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMAMURTHYNAGAR POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

SMT. RASHMI K W/O BHARGAV B M AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, GROUND FLOOR, NO.79, 1ST CROSS, POONGAVANAM NILAYA, GANGOTHRI ENCLAVE, MARAGONDANAHALLI BENGALURU-560036.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. S. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN S.C.NO.560/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 313 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT VIDE ANNEXURE A AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ANNEXURE B ALSO.

¶21

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

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37359 CRL.P No. 6945 of 2023

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 313 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶25

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

¶26

Parties are present before this Court and they have filed the application under Section 320 r/w Section 420 of Cr.P.C. for compounding offences and also enclosed the copy of the memorandum of settlement under Section 89 of CPC read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005, and the same is placed on record.

¶27

Perusal of the memorandum of settlement discloses that accused No.1 and the defacto complainant had filed a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolving their marriage mutually. In the said proceedings, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Bengaluru to explore the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties. The parties assembly resolved the dispute among themselves and in terms of the settlement their marriage has been dissolved mutually. The accused No.1 agreed to pay a

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:37359 CRL.P No. 6945 of 2023

¶30

sum of Rs.8,80,000/- towards permanent alimony and the balance amount has been paid through Demand Draft to the defacto complainant who is present before this Court, and the same is acknowledged by the defacto complainant subject to realization, and further she has no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings.

¶31

The application is placed on record.

¶32

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

¶33

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. The Criminal Petition is allowed;

¶36

ii. The impugned proceedings in S.C.No.560/2023 pending on the file of the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru, stands quashed.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:37359 CRL.P No. 6945 of 2023

¶39

iii. In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2023, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Sri. Bhargav B M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Bhargav B M 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

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

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