Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Bopanna Natolanda And Others vs State Of Karnataka And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|23 January, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2530/2016 BETWEEN 1. BOPANNA NATOLANDA, S/O KALAPPA NATOLANDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 2. KALAPPA NATOLANDA, S/O APPAIAH NATOLANDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 3. MRS. MANU KALAPPA W/O KALAPPA NATOLANDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 4. CHENGAPPA NATOLANDA S/O KALAPPA NATOLANDA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT: NO.201, LAA ROYAL MANOR, 11TH CROSS, 11TH MAIN, HAL II STAGE, BANGALORE-560008. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK.R, ADV. FOR SRI. DIWAKARA K, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALSOOR GATE WOMEN’S PS REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 2. SMT. POOJA CHARMANA NO.115-40/2, 5TH A CROSS ITTAMADU, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BANGALORE-560085. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1, R2 – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.06/2016 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A),506 OF IPC R/W SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT. FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND B REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HALSOOR GATE WOMEN'S POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITINOERS PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Counsel for the petitioner Sri. Abhishek.R. is present.
2. On behalf of respondent No.1-State SPP-I is present.
3. Respondent No.2 is served, unrepresented.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a joint affidavit executed by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had filed M.C. Petition No.5579/2018 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. In the said proceedings, they arrived at a settlement under Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005 in the mediation centre and in terms thereof, the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 is dissolved by a decree of divorce in the aforesaid M.C. Petition No.5579/2018.
5. Further, it is stated that in terms of the said settlement, respondent No.2 has withdrawn all the allegations leveled against the petitioner leading to the registration of the aforesaid FIR No.0006/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 506 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Along with the joint affidavit, the certified copy of the Memorandum of Settlement entered into by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 in M.C. No.5579/2018 is enclosed. In the said settlement at paragraph No.9 thereof the 2nd
against the petitioner which has given rise to the criminal prosecution for the above offences and she has no objection to quash the said proceedings. It is specifically stated therein that she undertakes to file an affidavit to that effect before this court as she is traveling abroad and cannot be able to keep herself present before this Hon’ble High Court.
6. Both the petitioner No.1 and 2nd respondent are working abroad. As both the parties have entered into settlement before the mediation center and the same having been made part of a divorce decree in M.C. No.5579/2018, there is no impediment to accept the terms of the compromise. For the reasons stated in the Memorandum of Settlement and joint affidavit sworn to before the notary, the presence of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 is dispensed with.
7. Having regard to the fact that the 2nd respondent has withdrawn all the allegations leveled against the petitioners leading to registration of the aforesaid FIR in Crime No.0006/2016, the parties are permitted to compound the alleged offences.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C. No.12758/2017 arising out of Crime No.0006/2016 filed for the alleged offences punishable under Section 498(A), 506 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs*/CT-HR
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Bopanna Natolanda And Others vs State Of Karnataka And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
23 January, 2019
Judges
  • John Michael Cunha
Advocates
  • Sri Abhishek R Is