Allowed

Mr Sunil Kumar R v. State by Women Police Station

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2024CRL.P/3345/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition to quash an FIR and complaint involving dowry and cruelty charges. The court accepted a joint settlement memo between the parties and quashed the proceedings and pending charges against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was disposed of; the registered crime and charge sheet pending before the 24th ACJM were quashed against the petitioners.

Mr Sunil Kumar R Vs State by Women Police Station — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:44663 CRL.P No. 3345 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3345 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. SUNIL KUMAR R., S/O RAMAKRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶8

MRS. GAYATHRI BAI, W/O RAMAKRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶9

MR. ANIL KUMAR R., S/O RAMAKRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT: NO. 68, FLAT NO. 401, 5^TH FLOOR, SRI SAI MANJUNATHA RESIDENCY, VIJAYASHREE LAYOUT MYLASANDRA KENGERI, BANGALORE - 560 059.

¶10

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. HEMANTH R. RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

STATE BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, WEST DIVISION, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 023. REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BANGALORE -01

¶15

MS. VAIBHAVI A NIKKAM

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:44663 CRL.P No. 3345 of 2024

¶18

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O. ARJUN R NIKKAM, R/AT HOUSE NO. 4, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE TO RAMA TEMPLE, VYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLIANT DATED 28.03.2024 AND FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 28.03.2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE IN CR.NO.9/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US 506, 34, 498-A, 504, 323 OF IPC AND SEC.4 OF D.P ACT BEFORE THE 24TH A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A AND B.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Heard Sri. Hemanth R. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Rangaswamy R., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. Ramakrishna Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

¶26

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties to the lis have settled the dispute among themselves and have

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:44663 CRL.P No. 3345 of 2024

¶29

filed a joint memo along with an affidavit. The joint memo

¶30

reads as follows:

¶31

" JOINT MEMO

¶32

The Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 submits as follows:

¶33

The Petitioner No.1 is the Husband and the Petitioner No.2 and 3 are the in-laws of the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 has lodged a criminal Complaint against the Petitioners before Women Police Station, West Division, Magadi Road, Bengauru, FIR was registered in Crime No. 9/2024 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 498(A), 504 506 and 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending on the file of Learned 24 A.C.J.M at Bengaluru.

¶34

2 The Petitioners have Challenged FIR and Charge Sheet before this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court pleased to stay the further investigation as against the Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are concerned.

¶35

Further the investigating Officer has filed the Charge sheet as against the 1 Petitioner in C.C. No. 20292/2024 on the file of 24% ACJM at Bengaluru.

¶36

The family dispute has arose between Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 are settled amicably. Accordingly, we have jointly filed a Petition before Hon'ble 1 Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court Bengaluru in MC No. 6214/2024 under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act for seeking relief of Decree of Divorce with mutual consent. Wherein the Petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay Rs. 7,50,000/(Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand only) towards permanent alimony and also have agreed to exchange belongings before the Family Court

¶37

In view of the above settlement, Respondent No.2 do not wish to contest or continue the criminal case against the Petitioners. Hence, there is no objection to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:44663 CRL.P No. 3345 of 2024

¶40

WHEREFORE , it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the Petition, in the interest of justice."

¶41

In the light of the settlement arrived at between the

¶42

parties, I deem it appropriate to accept the joint memo and close the proceedings against the petitioners in the subject petition.

¶43

The crime so registered against these petitioners as

¶44

well as the charge sheet so filed pursuant to the crime in C.C.No.20292/2024 stands quashed.

¶45

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. Criminal Petition is disposed.

¶48

ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.20292/2024 pending before the 24^th ACJM, Bengaluru, stands quashed qua the petitioners.

¶49

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶50

SJK

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37, CT:SNN

Mr Sunil Kumar R v. State by Women Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Sunil Kumar R v. State by Women Police Station

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. Chowdappa Bhaskar. Vs Kullachanda Chinnappa Subbaiah

Sri. Devaraju S Vs State by Maddur P.S.

Mr Moosa Kaleemulla Khan Vs Mrs Nagma Nikath

Smt. Dr Pruthvi Vs the District Appropriate Authority (Daa)

Mrs Fathima Vs State by

Mr. Farhan F Vs State by Mysuru City Women P.S.