IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6233/2019 BETWEEN 1. SRI. DEEPAK SINGH S/O BHAGAWAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 2. SRI BHAGAVAN SINGH S/O HANUMAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. SMT RAJKUMARI W/O HANUMAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 4. SMT ASHA W/O RAVI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 5. SRI RAVI S/O GOPALA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.32, 2ND CROSS ROAD, GOVERNMENT PRESS LAYOUT, MUNESHWARANAGAR, ULLAL MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560056.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI: DAYANANDA IRAYYAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE HOSKOTE POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-562114 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT SPP HIGH COURT 2 . SMT RANJITH H S W/O DEEPAK SINGH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8/192, 2ND CROSS, GANGAMMA GUDI ROAD, M V LAYOUT, HOSKOTE-562114. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT: K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT: VARALAKSHMI.P. ADVOCATE FOR R2) ---
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.845/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 323, 504, 506, 498(A) R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP and the learned counsel for the second respondent Smt.Varalakshmi.P. It is submitted by the learned counsel that she has filed power in the Registry.
2. The case is called out and the petitioners and the second respondent are present. The second respondent is identified by her counsel. On a query from this Court, the second respondent Smt.Ranjitha would affirm that she has affixed her signature to the verifying affidavit and the application and would submit that she has no objection to allow the application and thereby allow the petition and quash the proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for both the parties submit that the petitioners and the second respondent have resolved their differences and in furtherance of the same, they had sought for consensual dissolution of the marriage and a mutual consent divorce petition is preferred under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and came to be registered as M.C.No.4857/2018 and the Court of the learned III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru has been pleased to grant a decree dissolving the marriage between the first petitioner and the second respondent. That the resolution came about in the mediation and in the mediation, the petitioner No.1 had agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- as permanent alimony and compensation, which the second respondent has agreed to receive in full and final settlement of all her claims and it is submitted that the said amount has already been deposited in Criminal Misc.No.46/2012 before the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge, Hoskote.
4. Today the instant application is preferred under section 320 of Cr.P.C. read with section 482 of Cr.P.C. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the averments made in the application and in the petition.
On a detailed examination of the records, the records do not disclose commission of any heinous offence or infliction of any grievous injuries on the second respondent. The parties being husband and wife have dissolved the marriage by mutual consent, which is in the interest of the parties and the ends of justice would also be better served if the parties are permitted to amicably resolve all the differences and proceed their separate ways. The second respondent being the complainant having decided to withdraw the allegations in the complaint, no purpose would be served in directing the proceedings to be continued and taken to its logical end.
5. In the light of the parties having compromised, the chances of the prosecution securing any conviction are also remote and would be a mere waste of precious judicial time. Hence, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in GIAN SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and YOGENDRA YADAV & Others vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & Another reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 respectively, the application is taken on record.
Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.845/2012 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Hoskote, stands quashed. Learned counsel for the second respondent would make a request that the Court below be directed to release the amount in deposit. It is needless to state that if an application is made, the Court would positively consider the same in view of the present order.
The petition stands ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss.