Allowed

Sudheesh R v. the Station House Officer

Karnataka HC22 Sept 2023CRL.P/738/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner and respondent settled amicably through mediation. The marriage was dissolved, and the petitioner agreed to pay alimony, leading the court to deem trial futile and an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.8350/2020 quashed.

Sudheesh R Vs the Station House Officer — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:34432 CRL.P No. 738 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 738 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sudheesh R., Aged about 34 years Son of Rangaiah N., R/at No.1/214, Jakkeri Village, Denkanikote Taluk, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu State, Pin-635 107.

¶9

…Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri. Chandraiah, Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

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

¶13

The Station House Officer, Channammanakere Achu Kattu Police Station, Vishveshwarapuram Sub-Division Bengaluru City. Pin-560050.

¶14

Deepa K.R., Aged about 27 years Wife of Sudhish R., R/at No. 266/A, 1^st Cross, 2^nd Block, 3^rd Phase, Near Janatha Bazar, BSK 3^rd Stage, Pin-560 085. Bengaluru City.

¶15

…Respondents

¶16

(By Smt. M.M.Waheeda, HCGP for R1; Sri. N.R.Naik, Advocate)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:34432 CRL.P No. 738 of 2021

¶19

This Criminal Petition is filed u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings of the C.C.No.8350/2020 pending on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, at Bengaluru City (Document No.4). This Criminal Petition, coming on for orders, this day, the court made the following:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo along with copy of the memorandum of settlement entered into between the petitioner and

¶22

the second respondent and the same is placed on record.

¶23

2. The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted

¶24

for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶25

The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner/accused has subjected the de-facto complainant to cruelty, both mentally and physically, and also a demand was made to bring money from her parental home.

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:34432 CRL.P No. 738 of 2021

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

The petitioner had filed

¶29

M.C.No.1558/2023 for dissolving his marriage with the de-facto complainant. The matter was referred

¶30

to Mediation Centre, Bengaluru to explore the possibility of settlement between the parties before the Mediation Centre. The parties amicably resolved the dispute among themselves. In terms of the settlement, their marriage was dissolved mutually and the petitioner/accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/to the de-facto complainant towards permanent alimony. Respondent No.2 has stated that she has no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings which is evident from the memorandum of settlement under Section 89 of CPC read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005, in M.C.No.1558/2023.

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:34432 CRL.P No. 738 of 2021

¶32

Though the offences alleged are

¶33

cognizable and non-compoundable, however having regard to the fact that the parties have resolved the dispute among themselves, and the de-facto complainant having no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings, it would be a futile exercise, if the petitioner is subjected to trial, since the probability of his 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. Accordingly I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. Criminal petition is allowed .

¶36

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.8350/2020 pending on the file of the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City, is hereby quashed.

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:34432 CRL.P No. 738 of 2021

¶38

¶39

Pending application/s, if any, does not survive for consideration, in view of disposal of main

¶40

matter.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61

Sudheesh R v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheesh R v. the Station House Officer

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

Dr Sudhakara G Vs State of Karnataka by

Pradyumna S Vs State by Mico Layout

Mr Kuber Das Vs State of Karnataka

Shri S G Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Naval Kishore Maloo Vs State of Karnataka

Y S Yogananda Vs State by Range Forest