IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7037/2018 BETWEEN:
DR.VIDYANAND GURUMURTHY S/O.G.R.GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ALL R/AT #2269, 22ND CROSS, K.R.ROAD, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 070 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.SANTOSH.S.GOGI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HALASURGATE WOMEN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REP. BY THE SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001 2. DR.SUNITHA W/O. VIDYANAND GURUMURTHY, R/A. 19, UAS LAYOUT, RMV 2ND STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 094 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
MS.CHAMPOO KAVYA.S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.M.SUNIL SASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 18.02.2014 AND CHARGE SHEET DATED 11.11.2014 FILED BY THE HALASURGATE POLICE STATION BEFORE THE VI ADDITIONAL CMM COURT, BANGALORE, IN C.C.NO.30261/2014 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.44/2014 OF PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A) AND 506 OF IPC AND TAKING OF COGNIZANCE BY THE VI ADDITIONAL CMM COURT, BANGALORE CITY (ANNEXURE – A,B,C AND D) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner who is arraigned as accused in C.C.No.30261/2014 (arising out of Crime No.44/2014) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC pending on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru is before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.
2. Marriage between petitioner and second respondent came to be solemnised on 08.12.1996. On account of second respondent filing a complaint against the petitioner, it has been registered in Crime No.44/2014 for the offences aforestated. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.30261/2014.
3. In the meanwhile, petitioner and second respondent filed a petition under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in M.C.No.3732/2016 before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. In said M.C.No.3732/2016, matter came to be referred to the mediation and despite efforts made for reunion of the parties it did not yield fruitful result and ultimately a settlement was entered into which has been reduced into an agreement as prescribed under Section 89 of CPC read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005, copy of which is produced at Annexure-E. Pursuant to same, the jurisdictional Family Court has accepted the joint petition and declared the marriage solemnised between petitioner and second respondent on 08.12.1996 by granting a decree of divorce and dissolved said marriage. Accordingly, decree has been drawn. Hence, petitioner is seeking for quashing of said proceedings.
4. Petitioner and second respondent are present before Court. Affidavit has been filed by second respondent stating thereunder that she has no objection for quashing of proceedings pending against the petitioner in the light of dissolution of their marriage and she has also stated before the Court that without any threat, force or coercion, she has voluntarily agreed to withdraw the complaint in view of settlement having been arrived at between her and petitioner. Second respondent-complainant has unequivocally agreed to withdraw the complaint filed by her against petitioner and she has stated that she would have no objection for proceedings being quashed. Parties are identified by the learned Advocates present before Court. They have filed a memo enclosing photocopies of identity cards issued by the statutory authorities. Hence, this Court finds there is no impediment to accept the affidavit of second respondent and memo and they are placed on record.
5. Keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, whereunder it has been held that where the issue relates to matrimonial dispute and in the event of parties arriving at a settlement, continuation of criminal proceedings should not be allowed but on the other hand if allowed to continue, it would be an abuse of process of law. Hence, proceedings pending against petitioner is liable to be quashed and this Court finds there is no impediment to grant the prayer sought for.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.
(2) Proceedings pending against petitioner in C.C.No.30261/2014 pending on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC is quashed and petitioner is acquitted of said offences.
SD/- JUDGE KPS