IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9947/2017 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. AJITH KUMAR M S/O LATE MUNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT: NO.DBO 4 OLD KPTCL COLONY B.B. ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPLURA DISTRICT – 562 101.
2. SMT. BAYMMA W/O LATE MUNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.134, RESIDING AT NO.DBO 4, OLD KPTCL COLONY B.B. ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 101.
3. SMT. GAYATHRI W/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT OPP S.K. BAAH CONVENTION HALL, KOLAR ROAD VIJAYAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK – 562 135.
4. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT OPP S.K. BASAH CONVENTION HALL, KOLAR ROAD VIJAYAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK – 562 135.
5. SRI. DEVARAJ S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT H.S. GARDEN NEAR SIR M.V. STADIUM CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 101.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KARTHIK B.Y., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANGARPET POLICE BANGARPET REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SMT. ROHINI T.V D/O LATE T.M. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT THIMMAPURA VILLAGE, C.A. HALLI POST BANGARPET TAUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 114.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. H.V. SHYAMEGOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.372/2011 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT BANGARPET, WHEREIN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 498A, 323, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3,4,6 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners have been arraigned as accused in C.C.No.372/2011 (Crime No.117/2010) registered by Bangarpet Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Essentially dispute is between second respondent and first petitioner, whose marriage came to be solemnized on 08.05.2008 and out of said wedlock, a female child was born, who is said to be in the custody of second respondent. On account of certain differences in the marriage having arisen a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage came to be filed by first petitioner in M.C.No.41/2014 and in said proceedings a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 r/w Section 151 C.P.C came to be filed reporting the dispute having been settled according to terms set out in compromise petition and it came to be accepted by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and decree of dissolution of marriage came to be granted by dissolving the marriage solemnized between first petitioner and second respondent on 08.05.2008.
3. Insofar as, permanent alimony to wife i.e., second respondent herein is concerned `10 Lakhs has been agreed to be paid by petitioner and a sum of `5 Lakhs has already been paid and subsequently remaining amount has also been paid. Thus, agreed permanent alimony to be paid insofar as second respondent is concerned, has remained fully satisfied. However, with regard to payment of maintenance of amount to child is concerned, same is still pending for consideration. Hence, no opinion is expressed in that regard.
4. Insofar as present petition is concerned, which relates to criminal prosecution initiated against petitioners at the instance of second respondent is concerned, complainant herself has filed an affidavit saying that she has no objections for quashing the proceedings pending against petitioners.
5. Second respondent–complainant is also present before Court and reiterates the contents of her Affidavit. She submits that out of her own free will and volition, without any threat, force or coercion she has affixed her signature to the said affidavit. She also submits that she is not inclined to continue with the complaint lodged by her against petitioners.
6. Parties are present before Court and they are identified by their learned Advocates. To establish their identity photocopies of identity cards issued by the statutory authorities are also produced along with a memo.
7. In the light of aforestated facts and keeping in mind the principles laid down by the 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 sub-serve the ends of justice and it would be an abuse of process of law. Hence, 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 allowed.
(2) Proceedings pending against petitioners in C.C.No.372/2011 (Crime No.117/2010) registered by Bangarpet Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, *Bangarpet is hereby quashed and petitioners are acquitted of aforesaid offences.
* Corrected V.C.O dtd 02-04-2019.
(3) Jurisdictional Court namely, Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bangarpet, is hereby directed to release the property seized by investigating officer under P.F.No.49/2010 and P.F.No.50/2010 infavour of second respondent- complainant herein forthwith and on proper identification.
SD/-
JUDGE RU