Allowed

Sri K Abhinandan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2024CRL.P/5149/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband and relatives sought quashing of a dowry/cruelty FIR, charge sheet and cognizance order. The parties settled their matrimonial dispute in the divorce proceedings, with the wife receiving Rs.17 lakhs and filing an affidavit of no objection. The Court quashed the proceedings as essentially private in nature.

What did the court decide?

FIR dated 19.01.2016, charge sheet dated 20.04.2016 and cognizance order dated 01.12.2016 quashed.

Sri K Abhinandan Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:24612 CRL.P No. 5149 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5149 OF 2018 (482)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. K. ABHINANDAN SON OF SRI. B. K KAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO.247, SERPENTINE ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶8

SMT. ROOPA K W/O RANGALAKSHMISH V, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O 2304, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, ’D’ BLOCK, 2^ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 077.

¶9

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SMT. ASHWINI R M, W/O AJAY K, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶11

SRI. AJAY K, SON OF SRI. B. K. KAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶12

PETITIONER NO.3 AND 4 BOTH R/O FLAT NO. (OLD NO.53) NEW NO.80, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, OPP.S S L C BOARD, MALLESWARAM,

¶13

NC: 2024:KHC:24612 CRL.P No. 5149 of 2018

BENGALURU – 560 003.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SHARATH G GOGI., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SANJAYNAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REP. BY THE SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE.

¶20

SHILPA H. H. D/O. LATE H. R. HONNESHAIAH RESIDING AT NO.6, SHREE HONNESHWARA NILAYA, DEVAPPA GARDEN ROAD, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 094.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M. M., HCGP FOR R-1, SRI. VISHNU HEGDE., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶23

THIS CRL.P FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED QUASH THE FIR DATED 19.01.2016, AND CHARGE SHEET DATED 20.04.2016 FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE VIII ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.26667/2016 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.11/2016 AND ORDER DATED 01.12.2016 TAKING OF COGNIZANCE BY THE VIII ACMM, BANGALORE, (ANNEXURE – A, B, C AND D).

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:24612 CRL.P No. 5149 of 2018

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The proceedings arise out of a complaint lodged by

¶28

the second respondent for the offences under Sections 498A, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the DP Act”).

¶29

On the last occasion, a joint memo was filed wherein it was stated that the first petitioner-husband and the second respondent-wife had settled their differences in M.C.No.3938/2015, which had been initiated by the husband for dissolution of their marriage. The joint memo indicates that, as per the settlement arrived at, the wife has received a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs).

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also filed a copy of the order sheet in M.C.NO.3938/2015 which indicates that the wife has received two demand drafts for rupees Rs.5,00,000/(Rupees five lakhs) and Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs) and it is therefore

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:24612 CRL.P No. 5149 of 2018

¶32

clear that the terms of the settlement have been complied with. That apart, the wife has also filed an affidavit in this Court along with the affidavit of the husband, indicating that she has settled the dispute with her husband and she no longer wishes to continue the proceedings and requested for quashing of the proceedings.

¶33

In my view, having regard to the nature of the dispute, which is essentially private in nature and also taking into consideration that the matter has been settled in M.C.No.3938/2015, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. Consequently, the impugned proceedings are quashed.

¶34

This petition is accordingly allowed .

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

GSR

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Sri K Abhinandan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Abhinandan 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

Kumar Gouda L M Vs the State of Karnataka

Anser Babu Vs Mrs. Shazia Anjum

Sri M a Charles Vs Sri Chinnaswamy

Shri. Sujith Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kunhi Velayudhan Vs Smt Veena

V P Nandakumar Vs State of Karnataka