Disposed

Sri Vivekananda R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Sept 2024CRL.P/2219/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross criminal petitions between two related families arising from matrimonial disputes and multiple FIRs were resolved after divorce by mutual consent mediated before the Family Court. Relying on the memorandum of settlement and joint affidavit, the court accepted compounding and quashed all three FIRs against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

FIRs Crime Nos.05/2024, 57/2024 and 17/2024 quashed; proceedings terminated on settlement.

Sri Vivekananda R Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:41298 CRL.P No. 2219 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 2218 of 2024 CRL.P No. 10112 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2219 OF 2024

¶6

C/W

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2218 OF 2024

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10112 OF 2024

¶9

IN CRL.P No. 2219/2024

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. VIVEKANANDA R, SON OF RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU - 572 226.

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. SHASHANK VIVEK, SON OF VIVEKANANDA R, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU - 572 226.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. AKKI MANJUNATH GOWDA K, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TIPTUR TOWN POLICE STATION, TIPTUR, TUMKUR - 572 201, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:41298 CRL.P No. 2219 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 2218 of 2024 CRL.P No. 10112 of 2024

¶20

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶21

SMT. TRISHA SUDARSHAN, WIFE OF SRI. SHASHANK, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALASAVARA, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN - 573 101.

¶22

AS PER FIR, RESIDING AT RAMENAHALLI VILLAGE, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR - 572 226.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. VIVEK N, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE FIR IN CR.NO.05/2024 FILED BEFORE TIPTUR RURAL POLICE STATION, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 324, 307, 498A, 506, 354A, 354B OF IPC R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT, 1961, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AND JMFC COURT, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶26

IN CRL.P NO. 2218/2024

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SRI. VIVEKANANDA R, SON OF RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU, KARNATAKA - 572 201.

¶29

SMT. PUSHPA, WIFE OF SOMASHEKAR D.S.,

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:41298 CRL.P No. 2219 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 2218 of 2024 CRL.P No. 10112 of 2024

¶32

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAMARAPANAHALLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU, KARNATAKA - 572 201.

¶33

...PETITIONERS

¶34

(BY SRI. AKKI MANJUNATH GOWDA K, ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶37

BY TIPTUR TOWN POLICE STATION, TIPTUR, TUMKUR - 572 201, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶38

SMT. SAVITHA K.H, WIFE OF SRI. M.S. SUDARSHAN, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALASAVARA, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN - 573 101.

¶39

...RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI. THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. VIVEK N, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶41

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION IN CR NO. 74/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 354, 354(B), 504, 506, 34 OF IPC, 1860, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

¶42

IN CRL.P NO. 10112/2024

¶43

BETWEEN:

¶44

SAVITHA, WIFE OF SUDARSHAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:41298 CRL.P No. 2219 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 2218 of 2024 CRL.P No. 10112 of 2024

¶47

MALASAVARA, BELUR TALUQ,

¶48

HASSAN - 573 101.

¶49

TRISHA, WIFE OF SHASHANK VIVEK, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, MALASAVARA, BELUR TALUQ, HASSAN - 573 101.

¶50

SUDHARSHAN,

¶51

SON OF SHANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, MALASAVARA, BELUR TALUQ, HASSAN - 573 101.

¶52

...PETITIONERS

¶53

(BY SRI. VIVEK N, ADVOCATE)

¶54

AND:

¶55

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TIPTUR TOWN PS, TIPTUR, TUMAKURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶56

VIVEKANANDA R, SON OF RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RAMENAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUQ, TUMAKURU - 572 217.

¶57

...RESPONDENTS

¶58

(BY SRI. THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. AKKI MANJUNATH GOWDA K, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶59

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41298 CRL.P No. 2219 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 2218 of 2024 CRL.P No. 10112 of 2024

¶60

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS QUASHING THE FIR IN CR. NO. 57/2024 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 448, 504, 506, 323 R/W 34 OF IPC BEFRE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT, COMPOUNDING THE OFFENCES INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ON THE COMPLAINT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2.

¶61

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶62

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶63

ORAL ORDER

¶64

The petitioners are the family members and others

¶65

and are before this Court calling in question registration of FIR in Crime Nos.05/2024, 57/2024 and 17/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 324, 307,498A, 506, 354(A), 354(B), 504, 448, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶66

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Akki Manjunath

¶67

Gowda K., appearing for the petitioners, Sri. P. Thejesh learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri. Vivek N., appearing for respondent No.2 in all three cases.

¶68

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:41298 CRL.P No. 2219 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 2218 of 2024 CRL.P No. 10112 of 2024

¶69

The petitioner and the complainants are

¶70

relatives and others. They were in a squabble which has resulted in registration of crime in Crime Nos.5/2024, 57/2024 and 17/2024 for several offences. During the subsistence of the investigation, the parties have settled the dispute and have filed application under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking compounding of offence along with the joint affidavit of the parties. Though the offences alleged are the ones punishable under Section 307 of the IPC interalia, I deem it appropriate to accept the application seeking compounding and close the proceedings against these petitioners, on the ground that the allegations are between the members of the family of the husband and the wife. The terms of settlement drawn before the Family Court in M.C. No.5618/2024 reads as follows:

¶71

"3. We submit that, The Parties have come to a conclusion to resolve the entire disputes between themselves, unconditionally and als entered into a Memorandum of Settlement Agreement dt:25-092024 entered into between in M.C.No.5618/2024 before the IV Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, settled before the Karnataka Mediation

¶72

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:41298 CRL.P No. 2219 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 2218 of 2024 CRL.P No. 10112 of 2024

¶74

Centre at Bangalore. The Report has been accepted and marriage dissolved by way of Decree of Divorce on 25-09-2024. Terms of Agreement is reproduced as hereunder:

¶75

The petitioner and the respondent are Hindus by religion. Their marriage was solemnized on 23.01.2023 at Yediyur Siddalingeshwara Swamy Temple, Yediyur, Tumkur District as per Hindu rites and customs. Subsequently their marriage was registered before the Registrar of Marriage, Tiptur vide marriage certificate No. TPT-HM383-2022-23 dated 07.02.2023 stored in C.D.No. TPTM13.

¶76

The parties state and admit that due to irreconcilable differences and incompatibility of temperaments, they are living separately from 14.06.2023. The efforts made by the elders, friends and well wishers to resolve the differences between the parties did not yield any fruits. There is absolutely no chance of a reunion between them. The petitioner and the respondent know that their marriage is irretrievably broken down and there are no chances of reunion to lead a happy married life. Hence, the petitioner and the respondent have decided to get the marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce.

¶77

The Petitioner and the Respondent state that they have no children born to them from the said marriage.

¶78

Both the parties have state and agree that they have no claims of maintenance/permanent alimony either past, present or in future as both of them are gainfully employed.

¶79

The parties here in state that they have already exchanged their valuables such as gold, silver and other valuables given or taken during the marriage or otherwise, hence they have no claims against each other in this regard.

¶80

The parties herein state that they have no claims over the movables/immovables belonging to each

¶81

¶82

NC: 2024:KHC:41298 CRL.P No. 2219 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 2218 of 2024 CRL.P No. 10112 of 2024

¶83

other at present or to be acquired in future in view of this agreement.

¶84

The Petitioner and the Respondent have no other claims, of any nature whatsoever, against each other, whether past, present or in future.

¶85

The Petitioner and the Respondent agreed that the cases mentioned in the petition and Domestic violence case proceedings are pending against each other. In view of this settlement the parties undertake not to press and also agreed to cooperate to quash the proceedings of the said cases on the file of the Hon'ble Courts.

¶86

Both the Parties admit and agree that there is no collusion or force, fraud and undue influence in agreeing/ settling the aforesaid terms and conditions and entering into this Agreement in the aforesaid manner.

¶87

Both the parties state that without pressing on the allegations levelled against each other either orally or expressly arrived at this agreement.

¶88

Both the parties undertakes to not to interfere in each other's lives in future in any manner.

¶89

III. In view of the aforesaid agreement entered into between the parties, the parties pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to dissolve the marriage solemnized on 23.01.2023 at Yediyur Siddalingeshwara Swamy Temple, Yediyur, Tumkur District and cancel the marriage certificate registered before the Registrar of Marriage, Tiptur vide marriage certificate No. TPT-HM383-2022-23 dated 07.02.2023 stored in C.D. No. TPTM13 by granting a decree of divorce in terms of this agreement.

¶90

IV. Parties will appear on 25.09.2024 before the Hon'ble Court for passing of orders in terms of the agreement.

¶91

The Second Respondent named above hereby undertakes unconditionally withdraw the case filed

¶92

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:41298 CRL.P No. 2219 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 2218 of 2024 CRL.P No. 10112 of 2024

¶93

by her in Cr.Misc. No:431/2024 on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Belur, Hassan District;

¶94

WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Quash FIR in the Crime No:05/2024 against the Petitioners/Accused No. 1&2 for the offences punishable under section 324, 307, 498A, 506, 354(A), 354(B), of IPC, R/w 34 Under section 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) & JMFC Court, Tiptur, Tumkur District, against the Petitioner;"

¶95

In the light of the terms of the memorandum of settlement, I deem it appropriate to accept the application and the joint affidavit of the parties and terminate the impugned proceedings, as the dispute is between private parties and the allegations are not against the State.

¶96

For the aforesaid reasons the following:

¶97

ORDER

¶98

a) The criminal petition is disposed.

¶99

b) The registration of FIR in Crime Nos.05/2024, 57/2024 and 17/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 324, 307,498A, 506,

¶100

354(A), 354(B), 504, 448, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

¶101

NC: 2024:KHC:41298 CRL.P No. 2219 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 2218 of 2024 CRL.P No. 10112 of 2024

¶102

10 -

¶103

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

¶104

1961 stands quashed.

¶105

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶106

JUDGE

¶107

BVK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 10 CT: BHK

Sri Vivekananda R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vivekananda R 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

Sri Vijayakrishna C @ Sharath Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Gangadharaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Govindaraja Mills Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Meena N R Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr. Manish Parwani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T.R. Subbaraju @ Subbanna Vs State of Karnataka