IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7950/2015 BETWEEN 1 . SMT LATA PUROHIT W/O RAMESH PUROHIT, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.43, 1ST FLOOR, MINT STREET, SOWKAR, PET CHENNAI, TAMILNADU - 600079.
2 . SRI BABULAL PUROHIT (DELETED SINCE HE DIED ON 11.01.2019) 3. SMT BHURIDEVI W/O BABULAL PUROHIT, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PETITIONER NO.3 IS RESIDING AT SUJAPURA, BARLOOT VILLAGE, JAVAL TALUK, SIROHI DISTRICT, RAJASTHAN STATE – 307801.
(BY SRI CHANDRA KUMAR R, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . SMT SANTHOSHIKUMARI W/O ASHOK PUROHIT, D/O NARASRAM PUROHIT, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.262, 9TH MAIN, ..PETITIONERS 15TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560030.
2 . STATE BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER HALSUR GATE WOMEN’S POLICE STATION, BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE.
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R2 SRI RAMESH S BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET REGISTERED BY THE HALSOOR GATE WOMEN’S POLICE STATION, IN CR.NO.98/2014, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT, R/W SEC.506, 498(A) OF IPC AND THE SAME IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.9162/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
On 20.11.2019 the following order was passed:
“Learned HCGP has filed a memo dated 20.11.2019 along with a communication dated 05.11.2019 and death certificate of the petitioner No.2 - Babulal Purohit.
The memo is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to delete the name of the petitioner No.2 from the cause title.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a memo dated 16.07.2019 along with copy of the order of divorce by mutual consent granted by the Family Court, Sirohi, Rajasthan in F.C.No.243/2017 along with a copy of a mutual settlement arrived at by the husband and wife. Learned counsel submits that the respondent No.1 wife has agreed to withdraw all the cases filed by her against the husband and in-laws. However, the respondent No.1 has still not withdrawn the cases including the complaint on the basis of which this criminal petition is filed.
There is no appearance for respondent No.1 As a last opportunity, list this matter on 27.11.2019 in order to enable the respondent No.1 to have her say.”
2. On 27.11.2019 the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, was directed to serve Court notice on the first respondent through the jurisdictional police and report service of notice.
3. Learned HCGP has filed a report along with a memo dated 09.12.2019 stating that the first respondent-wife was not found in the address given in the cause-title. The neighbours have informed the Police that the first respondent is now residing in Surat. Since the mobile telephone number of the first respondent was made available to the Police, the Police have contacted the first respondent and have sent a message on whatsapp informing the first respondent about today’s hearing date. What is noticeable is that the learned Counsel on record representing the first respondent has also remained absent.
4. The material placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the marital dispute between the first respondent-wife and the husband, who is not a party in these proceedings, has been settled before the Family Court, Sirohi at Rajasthan in M.C.No.243/2017. It can also be seen that though the first respondent-wife has agreed to withdraw all the cases filed against the husband and in-laws i.e, the petitioners herein but respondent-wife has remained absent and the reasons for the first respondent remaining absent is quite obvious.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in many cases that where it is evident from the records that one party is trying to take advantage of the other and engaged in dubious techniques of arm twisting, the inherent power conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should necessarily be invoked by the Courts.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Kumar Sharma and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another in Crl.A.No.1599/2019 which was disposed of on 21.10.2019, wherein despite the settlement arrived at between the parties in the matrimonial proceedings and where an undertaking was given by one of the parties to withdraw all the legal proceedings but thereafter remained absent before the High Court, the High Court declined to quash the proceedings. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the High Court should have taken note of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved all their differences and consciously chose to unconditionally drop all proceedings related to marriage inter se including the criminal action initiated by the complainant.
7. Since the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the High Court should have taken note of the fact and quashed the proceedings, this Court deems it fit to allow the petition and quash the proceedings against the petitioners who are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the first respondent. During the course of these proceedings, the father-in-law of the first respondent passed away. Therefore the petition had survived only as against the petitioner Nos.1 and 3.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The chargesheet in Crime No.98/2014 for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, read with Sections 506 and 498A of IPC pending on the file of the VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.9162/2015 as against the petitioners herein stand quashed.
It is ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE JT/-