Allowed

Sri Tarun S Kumar v. State by Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2023CRL.P/8135/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition to quash proceedings for dowry harassment and cruelty was allowed. The court noted the parties settled amicably, the marriage was dissolved mutally, and the complainant accepted alimony. The proceedings were quashed as a futile exercise.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.55656/2019 against petitioners accused of dowry harassment and cruelty are quashed.

Sri Tarun S Kumar Vs State by Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:35966 CRL.P No. 8135 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8135 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. TARUN S KUMAR, S/O SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT FLAT 103, ITLINA ANAI APARTMENT, KEMPAPURA MAIN ROAD, YEMLUR KEMPAPUR, BENGALURU – 560 037.

¶8

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

¶9

SMT. GEETHA SHIVAKUMAR, W/O SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, PERMANENTLY R/AT NO.1-888, ASHRAYA NILAYA, 6^TH CROSS, RAJENDRA NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶10

SRI. VARUN KUMAR, S/O SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.103, ITLINA ANAI APARTMENT, KEMPAPURA MAIN ROAD, YEMLUR KEMPAPUR, BENGALURU – 560 037.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. MARUTI K NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.NAIK VENKATRAMAN NAGAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶13

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:35966 CRL.P No. 8135 of 2023

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE BY KARNATAKA, BY MARATHAHALLI POLICE, BENGALURU CITY. REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

SMT. PRAFULLA SOMALAPU, W/O SRI. TARUN S KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.103, ITLINA ANAI APARTMENT, KEMPAPURA MAIN ROAD, YAMLURU, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU – 560 037.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR P PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.55656/2019 (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.150/2019) REGISTERED BY THE MARATHAHALLI POLICE, BENGALURU (RESPONDENT) AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT PENDING BEFORE THE XXIX ADDL.C.M.M, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:35966 CRL.P No. 8135 of 2023

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶25

The case of the prosecution is that, accused No.1/husband, accused Nos.2 and 3/parents-in-law subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty, both mentally and physically and demanded to bring money from the parental home.

¶26

The parties are present before this Court and have filed an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for compounding offences stating that they have amicably settled the dispute among themselves. The defacto-complainant had filed a petition in M.C.No.62/2021 for dissolving her marriage with accused No.1, on the ground of cruelty and in the said proceedings, the marriage of the defacto-complainant with accused No.1 has been dissolved mutually and accused No.1 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and the second respondent/defacto complainant has no objection to quash the impugned proceedings.

¶27

The application is placed on record.

¶28

Accused No.1 who is present before this Court has handed over the demand draft for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the defacto-complainant towards permanent alimony, the receipt of which is acknowledged, subject to realization. The

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:35966 CRL.P No. 8135 of 2023

¶31

defacto-complainant has also agreed to withdraw the proceedings in Crl.RP.No.108/2022 pending before the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Koppal.

¶32

Though the offences alleged against the petitioners are cognizable and non compoundable, having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves and the marriage of the second respondent/ defacto complainant with accused No.1 having been dissolved mutually, and the second respondent having no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings, it would be a futile exercise, if the petitioners/accused are subjected to trial, since the probability of conviction of the petitioners/accused is remote and bleak. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶35

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.55656/2019

¶36

on the file of XXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bangalore is hereby quashed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

RKA

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78

Sri Tarun S Kumar v. State by Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Tarun S Kumar v. State by 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

Santhosh Kumar Vs State by

Kiran v N @ Vasu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sevalal Sangna Basava Swamiji @ Yuvaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Narayan Mahadevrao Biradar Vs M/S Aarbee International

Sri. Abdul Majeed Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Premsingh Choudary Vs State of Karnataka