Allowed

Sri Shyam Sundar Falor v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2023WP/10994/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In three consolidated writ petitions, the High Court of Karnataka allowed petitions seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The court observed that the petitioner and respondent had divorced outside India and buried hatchet, making prosecution useless.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of prosecution launched against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C. No.4488/2021 for offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.

Sri Shyam Sundar Falor Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:42080 WP No. 10994 of 2021 C/W WP No. 10305 of 2021 WP No. 11585 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.10994 OF 2021 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.10305 OF 2021 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO.11585 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶8

IN W.P.NO.10994/2021:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI SHYAM SUNDAR FALOR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING PRESENTLY AT 54 MOO 5 SUDBANTAD ROAD, T. TANDIEW A., KAENGKHOI SARABURI, THAILAND-18110 ALSO AT 1271, AVENIDA LAS BRISAS, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, USA.

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. MAINA FALOR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 54 MOO 5 SUDBANTAD ROAD T. TANDIEW A. KAENGKHOI SARABURI, THAILAND-18110 ALSO AT 1271, AVENIDA LAS BRISAS, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, USA.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560086

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:42080 WP No. 10994 of 2021 C/W WP No. 10305 of 2021 WP No. 11585 of 2021

¶19

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶20

SMT. ANKITA CHANDAK D/O SHRIRAM CHANDAK, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A 758/21, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, MAHALAXMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560086

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶23

SRI. SUMAN K. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.02.2020 (COMPLAINANT) FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNXEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶25

IN W.P. NO.10305/2021:

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SMT. PRIYANKA FALOR D/O SYAMSUNDARFALOR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT 7575, GATEWAY BALVARD, NEWARK, CA 94560

¶28

…PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560086. REPRESENTED BY

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:42080 WP No. 10994 of 2021 C/W WP No. 10305 of 2021 WP No. 11585 of 2021

¶34

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUIDLING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶35

SMT. ANKITACHANDAK D/O SHRIRAMCHANDAK, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT 758/21, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, MAHALAXMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560086.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶38

SRI. SUMAN K. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶39

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.02.2020 AND F.I.R DATED 04.02.2020 REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.29/2020 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 34, 504, 506, 498A AND 323 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURES-A AND B AND ETC.

¶40

IN W.P. NO.11585/2021:

¶41

BETWEEN:

¶42

SRI. PAARTH FALOR S/O SHYAMSUNDARFALOR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING PRESENTLY AT: 1271, AVENIDA LAS BRISAS, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, USA.

¶43

…PETITIONER

¶44

(BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE)

¶45

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42080 WP No. 10994 of 2021 C/W WP No. 10305 of 2021 WP No. 11585 of 2021

¶46

AND:

¶47

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHALASKHMI LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶48

SMT. ANKITA CHANDAK D/O SHRIRAM CHANDAK, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A 758/21, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, MAHALAXMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560086.

¶49

…RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶51

SRI. SUMAN K.S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶52

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.02.2020 (COMPLAINANT) FILED BY THE COMPLIANANT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶53

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

The petitioners' in these petitions have all challenged the prosecution launched against them in C.C. No.4488/2021 pending trial before the Chief Metropolitan

¶56

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42080 WP No. 10994 of 2021 C/W WP No. 10305 of 2021 WP No. 11585 of 2021

¶57

Magistrate, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as the 'Trial Court') for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act, 1961').

¶58

Based on the information furnished by respondent No.2 on 04.02.2020, the respondent No.1 registered Crime No.29/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 1961 and took up investigation. A charge sheet was thereafter filed against the petitioners / accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 1961. The Trial Court in terms of the order dated 26.02.2021, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 1961 against accused Nos.1 to 4 and directed the office to register criminal case, which was

¶59

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:42080 WP No. 10994 of 2021 C/W WP No. 10305 of 2021 WP No. 11585 of 2021

¶60

numbered as C.C. No.4488/2021, for the aforesaid offences and issued non-bailable warrant to accused Nos.1 to 4. The petitioners have therefore filed these petitions to quash the complaint, FIR, charge sheet and the proceedings in C.C. No.4488/2021. They have also sought for declaration that they have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint and FIR in Crime No.29/2020.

¶61

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners' that the marriage of the respondent No.2 in these petitions, with the petitioner in W.P. No.11585/2021 was dissolved by a decree by mutual consent before the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Family Justice Center Court House, (San Jose,) United States of America (USA), on 29.12.2021. She further submits that a petition for dissolution of the marriage was filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C. No.710/2020 by the respondent No.2 and that in the said proceedings, both the husband and wife admitted that their marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce by

¶62

¶63

NC: 2023:KHC:42080 WP No. 10994 of 2021 C/W WP No. 10305 of 2021 WP No. 11585 of 2021

¶64

mutual consent at the Superior Court of California in USA as stated above and consequently, they filed a joint memo dated 18.07.2022 stating that M.C. No.710/2020 could be disposed off in terms of the decree dated 29.12.2021 passed by the Superior Court of California in USA. Accordingly, M.C. No.710/2020 was disposed off by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in terms of the order dated 18.07.2022.

¶65

Now that the parties have buried the hatchet and have closed all proceedings relating to their marriage, continuation of the prosecution of the petitioners in C.C. No.4488/2021 would serve no useful purpose but will be a wasteful exercise of judicial time. The respondent No.2 too accepts that the prosecution of the petitioners may be quashed.

¶66

Consequently, all these petitions are allowed

¶67

and the prosecution launched against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C. No. No.4488/2021 pending trial before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

¶68

NC: 2023:KHC:42080 WP No. 10994 of 2021 C/W WP No. 10305 of 2021 WP No. 11585 of 2021

¶69

¶70

Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is quashed.

¶71

In view of disposal of these petitions, the pending interlocutory application/s in these petitions do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

SMA

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Sri Shyam Sundar Falor v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shyam Sundar Falor 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

M.C.Ashok Vs Vincent Pinto

Mr.Moin Ulla Khan Vs K.R.S.M. Educational and Charitable Trust

Sri Chikkanarasimhaiah @ Raju Vs Sri N Narasimhaiah

Smt B S Prema Vs Mahalinge Gowda

Director of Municipal Administration Vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Shamsheer Bahadur Singh Vs the Station House Officer