IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2444/2014 BETWEEN:
Karthik V., Aged about 28 years S/o C. Venkatesh R/o. No.57, 5th Cross, 1st Block, Akshaya Nagar T.C. Palya Road Bengaluru-560 016.
(By Sri G.S.Chakravarthy, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka K.G. Halli Police Station Bengaluru.
2. Sri Raghavendra Murthy Aged about 65 years S/o Narasimhaiah 3. R. Sahana Aged about 24 years D/o Raghavendra Murthy Both residents of Baradwaj, No.384, 5th Main, 3rd Block, …Petitioner H.B.R. Layout, Bengaluru-560 043.
…Respondents (By Sri Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R1; Sri G.Vikram, Advocate for R2;
Vide order dated 11.07.2019 petition against R3 is dismissed) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.481/2013 by the 1st respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 354(d)(1), 509, 506 of IPC and Section 66A of Information Technology Act vide Annexure-A on the file of XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R A memo is filed by learned counsel for petitioner duly signed by him seeking to dismiss the case against third respondent as not pressed.
In view of the said memo, petition is dismissed as against third respondent as not pressed.
2. Petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant have filed a compromise petition under Section 320(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. seeking leave of the Court to compound the offences alleged against the petitioner under Section 354(D)(1), 506, 509 and Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act. The application is signed by petitioner and respondent No.2 and their respective counsels. The parties are identified by their respective counsel.
3. In the petition it is stated that petitioner and respondent No.2 have settled the dispute between them amicably and in view of the said settlement petitioner has agreed to withdraw the private complaint in PCR No.52032/2013 before the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw the complaint filed by him against petitioner in Crime No.481/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 354(D)(1), 506, 509 and under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.
4. Having regard to the nature of the allegations made in the First Information Report and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the petition is allowed. The parties are permitted to compound the offences.
5. Petition is allowed, the proceedings pending against petitioner in Crime No.481/2013 for offences punishable under Section 354(D)(1), 506, 509 and under Section 66A of Information Technology Act are quashed.
*AP/-
Sd/- JUDGE