Allowed

Smt P Lathashyamaraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2024CRL.P/5438/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed two criminal petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of FIRs. Pending criminal proceedings initiated due to marital differences were quashed as parties had resolved differences, obtained divorce by mutual consent, and the accused acknowledged the settlement.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; proceedings against petitioners quashed.

Smt P Lathashyamaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:19334 CRL.P No. 5438 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 5437 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5438 OF 2019

¶7

C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5437 OF 2019

¶9

IN CRL.P.No.5438/2019: BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT P LATHASHYAMARAJU W/O PATHAPATISHYAMARAJU TEMPORARILY R/AT C/O P SUMITA HOUSE NO. 313, 100 FEET ROAD INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560038.

¶11

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

¶12

SRI PATHAPATISAI KUSHAL S/O PATHAPATISHYAMARAJU TEMPERORILY R/AT C/O DR SURENDRANATH NO.39/435B, ARAVAINDA NAGAR KADAPA, ANDHRA 516001.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. SANTHOSH RAJ. URS., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SADASHIVANAGAR POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPP

¶17

HIGH COURT, BANGALORE -560001.

¶18

SRI P.SHYAMARAJU S/O LATE NARASARAJU R/AT NO.343, 4TH MAIN SADASHIVANAGAR

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:19334 CRL.P No. 5438 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 5437 of 2019

¶21

BANGALORE-5560080

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI.MANU.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.195/2018 OF SADASHIVANAGAR POLICE STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120(B), 468, 465, 420, 419, 469 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF VII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶25

IN CRL.P.No.5437/2019:

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SMT P LATHASHYAMARAJU W/O PATHAPATISHYAMARAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, TEMPORARILY R/AT C/O P SUMITA HOUSE NO. 313, 100 FEET ROAD INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560038.

¶28

SRI PATHAPATISAI KUSHAL S/O PATHAPATISHYAMARAJU TEMPERORILY R/AT C/O DR SURENDRANATH NO.39/435B, ARAVAINDA NAGAR KADAPA, ANDHRA 516001.

¶29

…PETITIONERS

¶30

(BY SRI. SANTHOSH RAJ. URS., ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SADASHIVANAGAR POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPP

¶33

HIGH COURT, BANGALORE -560001.

¶34

SRI P.SHYAMARAJU S/O LATE NARASARAJU R/AT NO.343, 4TH MAIN

¶35

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19334 CRL.P No. 5438 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 5437 of 2019

¶36

SADASHIVANAGAR BANGALORE-5560080

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI.MANU.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶39

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.190/2018 OF SADASHIVANAGAR POLICE STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 427, 448 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF VII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶40

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

Both these petitions have been presented by the wife (petitioner No.1) herein, challenging the proceedings initiated on the complaint of her husband (respondent No.2) herein. The allegations in the complaint indicate that, there were differences between the husband and wife as a result of which, criminal proceedings were initiated.

¶43

Learned counsel for the parties submit that, during the pendency of this petition, the differences between the husband and wife have been resolved and a decree of divorce by mutual consent has also been obtained.

¶44

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19334 CRL.P No. 5438 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 5437 of 2019

¶45

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/husband submits that, the property which is the subject matter of one of the complaints has also been restored to the husband and therefore, applications are filed to compound the offences. The husband is present through video conference and acknowledges that the differences are being settled.

¶46

Having regard to the relationship of parties and the dispute essentially is one which has arisen due to marital differences, in my view, it would be appropriate to compound the offences and quash the proceedings. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners shall stand quashed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

GSR

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Smt P Lathashyamaraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt P Lathashyamaraju v. 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

Shri. G. Nagarayanappa Vs the State of Karnataka by

Smt a R Thejavathi Vs a L Umesh

Vishwanatha Gowda P Vs the State of Karnataka

H Raju Naik Vs Stanly John

Sri Eshwarappa C Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Azara Ismail Vs a S R Exports Pvt. Ltd.