IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6648 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
1. SRI A.P.SUBRAMANYAM AGED 65 YEARS S/O LATE A.R.PANDURANGAN.
2. SMT. ASHADEVI S AGED 56 YEARS W/O A.P.SUBRAMANYAM.
3. SRI A.S.DEVANAND AGED 35 YEARS S/O A.P.SUBRAMANYAM.
PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.70 1ST MAIN ROAD ANUBHAV NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 072.
4. KARTHIKEYAN S/O SUBRAMNYAM AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS NO.39, 1ST CROSS ANUBHAVNAGAR MOODALA PALYA CHANDRALAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 072. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI SARAVANA S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SATYANARAYANA CHALKE .S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESNTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN’S POLICE STATION BANASHANKARI CIRCLE AND SUB DIVISION BENGALURU SOUTH DIVISION BENGALURU CITY – 560 040.
2. SMT. KALPANA T D/O SRI. DHANIKA CHALAN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.26/2 MEANEE AVENUE ROAD SHIVAM CHETTY GARDEN HALASURU BENGALURU – 560 042. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI D. KRISHNAMOORTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2014 PASSED IN C.C.NO.25201/2010 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent. Perused the records.
2. At the instance of respondent No.2, an FIR was registered in Crime No.185/2009 against four accused including the present petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, during investigation, charges against the present petitioners were dropped and the charge sheet was laid only against accused No.1. During the course of trial of accused No.1, Special Public Prosecutor moved an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., seeking to implead the present petitioners on the ground of adequate material being available on record for prosecuting the petitioners for the above said offences. After issuing notice to the petitioners and after hearing them, the trial Court allowed the application and directed impleadment of the present petitioners as accused Nos.2 to 4. The revision petition preferred by the petitioners against the said order in Criminal Revision Petition No.12/2015 has ended in dismissal. Hence, petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the impugned orders passed by the trial Court as well as the revisional Court directing impleadment of the petitioners as co-accused Nos.2 to 4.
3. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has produced the certified copy of the order passed by this Court in MFA.No.11233/2012(FC) dated 17.11.2015 which discloses that both the parties submitted a joint memo before this Court and this Court on accepting the said joint memo dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No.2 arising out of the judgment and decree passed by II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in MC No.2985/2008. The relevant portion of the said judgment at para No.2 reads as under:-
“2. The joint compromise memo discloses that the parties have compromised inter se on certain terms. Under the joint memo of compromise, the appellant herein has agreed to withdraw the cases in CC.No.25201/2010, CC.No.133/2011, Ex.EC.Mis.No.177/2013, PCR.No.23912/2013, CC.No.747/2010, Cr.RP.No.12/2015 connected with CC.No.25201/2010, Crl.P.No.6658/2015, Cr.RP.No.232/2015 pending before different Courts. The respondent herein has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.18,25,000/- in two installments to the appellant herein towards permanent alimony in full and final settlement subject to withdrawal of the cases before the Civil as well as Criminal Courts.”
4. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the certified copy of the order passed by this Court in C.C.C.No.508/2016 (Civil) dated 02.06.2016, wherein it is recorded as under:-
“2. Today, learned Counsel for the Accused handed over two demand drafts in the name of the complainant Kalpana for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.6,25,000/- and also handed over two demand drafts in the name of her son Nishanth for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/-, thus in all, for a sum of Rs.18,25,000/- which was the agreed amount in the aforesaid proceedings.
3. It is submitted that the interest on the said amount has already been credited to the respective accounts of the mother and the son.
4. In that view of the matter, the order is complied with.
5. Contempt proceedings are dropped. However, it is made clear that both the parties shall withdraw all pending cases if they have initiated against the opposite party.”
5. In view of the above orders, second respondent is not entitled to continue the prosecution launched against the petitioners. The orders passed by this Court in the proceedings referred above indicate that the second respondent has withdrawn the allegations made against the petitioners as such continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would be illegal and abuse of process of Court.
6. For the said reasons, the petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 15.12.2014 passed by II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City in C.C.No.25201/2010 and the impugned order dated 04.06.2015 passed by LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Criminal Revision Petition No.12/2015 are set aside. Consequently, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR