IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2559/2018 BETWEEN:
1. MR. KRISHNAMURTHY BELURU AGED 63 YEARS S/O MR. RAMAIAH.
2. MRS. PREMA KRISHNAMURTHY AGED 62 YEARS W/O MR. KRISHNAMURTHY BELURU.
PETITIONER NOs. 1 & 2 RESIDING AT NO B-008, PARIVAR PENDENT APARTMENT, SUPREME RESIDENCY LAYOUT, 1ST MAIN, 1ST A CROSS KODICHIKKANAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 076. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DEEPAK., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BOMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU.
2. S.R. SHRUTHI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS D/O MR. RAMESH V.S C/O MR. KODANDARAMA NO 16, HAMSANANDA II CROSS, SRIRAMA LAYOUT PUTTENAHALLI, J.P. NAGAR VII PHSE, BANGALORE – 560 078.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. B.M. ADIGA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.23912/2017 PENDING BEFORE THE C.M.M., BENGALURU AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners who have been arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 2 respectively in C.C.No.23912/2017 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, by Bommanahalli Police Station pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.
2. Marriage between one Raghuram Belur (accused No.1) and second respondent came to be solemnised on 01.05.2016 and due to certain irreconcilable differences both parties were said to be living separately. Thereafter second respondent lodged a complaint against petitioners (in-laws) and against her husband (Accused No.1) before first respondent- police alleging dowry harassment and after investigation charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.23912/2017 and same is pending before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. A petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence also came to be filed by second respondent in Crl.Misc.No.238/2016, which is pending before V Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Bengaluru and husband of second respondent namely, Raghuram Belur has also filed a petition for divorce before jurisdictional Family Court in M.C.No.5577/2017 under Section 13(i)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3. Today a joint memo along with affidavit of second respondent/complainant is filed stating thereunder that at the intervention of elders above matters have been compromised and marriage between Raghuram Belur and second respondent has also been dissolved by jurisdictional Family Court in M.C.No.5577/2017 and a permanent alimony has also been paid by husband-Raghuram Belur (accused No.1) to second respondent –wife and in terms of compromise entered into second respondent has undertaken to withdraw all pending cases initiated against petitioners. It is further stated that in view of compromise entered into parties and also in view of permanent alimony having been paid, second respondent has no further grievance against petitioners and she has no objection for quashing of the proceedings pending against petitioners.
4. Both parties are present before Court.
Second respondent/complainant reiterate the contents of joint memo as well as affidavit filed by her. She further submits that out of her own free will without any force, threat or coercion she has affixed her signature to the joint memo. She further submits that she has no objection for quashing the proceedings pending against petitioners in C.C.No.23912/2017. To establish her identity, she has produced photocopy of the identity card issued by statutory authorities along with joint memo. In token of having identified second respondent, learned Advocate appearing for her has also affixed his signature to the joint memo.
5. In the light of aforestated facts and keeping in mind 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, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of further proceedings against petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose particularly when second respondent/ complainant herself retraced her steps and has expressed her unwillingness to prosecute complaint lodged by her against petitioners and as such it would not sub serve the ends of justice and it would only be waste of precious judicial time. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending against petitioners in C.C.No.23912/2017 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, by Bommanahalli Police Station, on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed and petitioners are acquitted of aforesaid offences.
In view of petition having been allowed, I.A.No.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration and it stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE DR