Quashed

Shri Ramesh M C v. State by Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2023CRL.P/9917/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, relying on a reported settlement memo wherein the respondent agreed to accept maintenance payment and cooperate with case closure.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.267/2011 against the petitioners were quashed and the petition was disposed of.

Shri Ramesh M C Vs State by Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:21858 CRL.P No. 9917 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9917 OF 2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SHRI RAMESH M.C AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O CHAMUNDI.

¶6

SMT. RAJESHWARI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O CHAMUNDI N RESIDENT OF NO.3 THAVARA KATTE CHAMUNDI HILLS MAIN ROAD

¶7

MYSORE - 570 010.

¶8

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

¶9

SMT. HEMALATHA M.C AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶10

W/O HARISH, RESIDING AT NO.3/A THAVARA

¶11

KATTE, CHAMUNDI HILLS MAIN ROAD, MYSORE - 570 010.

¶12

SHRI CHAMUNDI N AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS S/O NANJAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.3 THAVARA KATTE

¶13

CHAMUNDI HILLS MAIN ROAD MYSORE - 570 010.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI JOSEPH ANILKUMAR A, ADV.)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE BY KARNATAKA

¶18

BY WOMEN POLICE STATION MYSORE CITY - 570 001.

¶19

SMT. GANASHREE G AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS NO.872/2 I FLOOR 16TH CROSS

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:21858 CRL.P No. 9917 of 2022

¶22

RAMANJUNA ROAD MYSORE - 570 004.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODA, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED)

¶25

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.267/2011 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MYSURU AT ANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.267/2011 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A & 506 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶28

Against the orders passed by the concerned courts, the parties were before this Court in RPFC.No.175/2015 which is settled by placing a joint memo for settlement. The joint memo so placed before this Court in RPFC.No.175/2015 reads as follows:

¶29

JOINT MEMO FOR SETTLEMENT

¶30

1. The Petitioner and Respondent herein has settled their matrimonial disputes as follows:-

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:21858 CRL.P No. 9917 of 2022

¶33

a) The Respondent has agreed to accept 50% of the order passed by the Hon'ble Additional Judge Family Court, Mysore in Cri Misc NO.353/2011, i.e. Petitioner is liable to pay Rs.3,500/- per month from the dated of filing till the date of marriage of Respondent i.e. 18/08/2019.

¶34

b) The Respondent has also agreed to co-operate in closing Pending cases/case filed against the Petitioner and other accused in Petitioner family incase CC no.267/2011 pending consideration before the Hon'ble V Addl Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Mysore, and Cri MIsc 89/2021 Pending consideration in Addl Family Court Mysore.

¶35

1. The Petitioner herein has deposited Rs.1,69,750/- on various dates in Cri Misc 89/2021 and balance vide D/D bearing No.305980, Union Bank of Inida, Siddhartha Layout Branch, Mysore to the sum of Rs.1,69,750/- dated 04/07/2022 which is towards the final settlement as

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:21858 CRL.P No. 9917 of 2022

¶37

agreed above. The Respondent has acknowledged the receipt.

¶38

WHEREFORE The Petitioner and Respondent herein prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispose the case in view of the settlement agreed upon in the interest of justice and equity."

¶39

Clause (b) of condition no.1 deals with the parties to cooperate with the closure of the present proceedings. In the light of the settlement before the RPFC so filed, I deem it appropriate to close the present proceedings against the petitioners.

¶40

For the aforesaid reasons, the following order:

¶41

The petition is disposed. The proceedings in C.C.No.267/2011 against the petitioners shall stand quashed.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Shri Ramesh M C v. State by Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ramesh M C 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

Dr Chandrashekar B G Vs State of Karnataka

Sree Gowri Ganesha Souharda Credit Co-Operativ Society Ltd., Vs the Superintendnt of Police

Ranganatha S Vs the State of Karnataka

Lewis Francis Vs State of Karnataka

Lewis Francis Vs Ligy Lewis

Sri Venkatareddy Kommepalli Venkatareddy Vs the State of Karnataka