Allowed

Nalinkumar H R v. State by Mandya Women Police Station

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2024CRL.P/7726/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings arising from domestic disputes between petitioners and respondent No. 2. The quashing was based on a prior civil court decree settling the dispute and explicitly ordering the quashing of the criminal FIR.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No.30/2020 registered at Mandya Women Police Station and pending investigation is hereby quashed.

Nalinkumar H R Vs State by Mandya Women Police Station — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45187 CRL.P No. 7726 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7726 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NALINKUMAR H.R. S/O LATE RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶8

SMT. SHANTHA KUMARI W/O LATE RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶9

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF "VARALAKSHMI NILAYA", 2^ND STAGE, KRISHNANAGAR, PANDAVAPURA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. KESHAV MURTHY K.R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY MANDYA WOMEN POLICE STATION, STATE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶15

SMT. CHAITHRASREE M.Y. W/O NALINKUMAR H.R., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 5^TH CROSS, UDAYAGIRI, MANDYA CITY - 571 401

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1

¶18

SRI. H.L. VISHALA RAGHU, ADVOCATE FOR R2(AB))

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.30/2020 PENDING INVESTIGATION BEFORE THE 1^ST

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:45187 CRL.P No. 7726 of 2021

¶21

RESPONDENT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 468A, 323, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT IN PURSUANCE OF JOINT COMPROMISE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2^ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.30/2020 of Mandya Women

¶26

Police station now pending in CC No.5865/2021 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act).

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that complainant-respondent No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1 and dispute amongst them is already settled as reported in G and Wc No.2/2021 on the fie of learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Mandya. He refers to the certified copy of the decree passed in the said case, in particular clause (e), which reads as under:

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45187 CRL.P No. 7726 of 2021

¶29

"At this stage, respondent has also agreed to get quash the proceedings of Cr.No.30/2020 before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka, Bengaluru."

¶30

G and Wc No.2/2021 on the file of the learned Prl.Senior.Civil Judge and MACT, Mandya was initiated by the petitioner No.1-Nalinkumar H.R., against respondent No.2 herein Chaithrsree M.Y. Various terms of the settlement are highlighted in the decree dated 31.08.2021 and one of the condition is that respondent-wife has agreed to get quash the proceedings in Cr.No.30/2020 of Mandya Women Police station. Satisfied with the grounds made out for quashing criminal proceedings. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Criminal petition is allowed .

¶33

The FIR registered in Crime No.30/2020 of Mandya Women Police for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of the DP Act now pending in CC No.5865/2021 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, is hereby quashed.

¶34

BH: List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24

Nalinkumar H R v. State by Mandya Women Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalinkumar H R v. State by Mandya Women Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Paragon Poly Films Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Vinayaka Enterprises

B C Thimmaiah Vs Mr Narayana

Hemalatha E Vs N B Shwetha

O2 Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh

Maruthi Merchants Finance Company Vs Smt Bhagyamma

Mr Yogesha N M Vs Ms Lakshmi M S