IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.586/2018 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. KISHORE B.N S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO.42, MEGHASHYAMA NILAYA, 6TH CROSS BRUNDAVANA NAGARA MATHIKERE BANGALORE-560 054.
2. SMT. BHANUMATHI W/O NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.42, MEGHASHYAMA NILAYA, 6TH CROSS BRUNDAVANA NAGARA MATHIKERE BANGALORE-560 054.
3. SHILPA D/O NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS NO.42, MEGHASHYAMA NILAYA, 6TH CROSS BRUNDAVANA NAGARA MATHIKERE BANGALORE-560 054.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SREEKANTHA K.S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY YESHWANTHPURA POLICE, REP. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
2. SMT. TEJASWNI K D/O KRISHNAMURTHY B.T AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O NO.99, K.H.B. COLONY RANEBENNUR HAVERI DISTRICT-581115 ALSO AT NO.42, MEGHASHYAMA NILAYA, 6TH CROSS BRUNDAVANA NAGARA MATHIKERE BANGALORE-560 054.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S. VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDL.
C.M.M. BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.28618/2016 FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A) OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.28618/2016 registered by Yeshwanthapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 498A r/w Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, have sought for quashing of said proceedings.
2. Today a joint memo has been filed by the learned Advocates appearing for parties which is also duly signed by petitioners 1 to 3 and second respondent.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned Advocates appearing for parties including learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. Perused the case papers.
4. Marriage between petitioner and second respondent was solemnized on 12.08.2010 at Ranebennur and out of said wedlock a son has been born, who is said to be in the custody of second respondent-complainant-mother. On account of certain disputes having arisen between them, they have been residing separately and first petitioner herein had filed M.C.No.3829/2016 for dissolution of marriage which is filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
5. Second respondent-wife had filed a complaint on 07.11.2016 with the Yeshwanthapura Police Station alleging demand for dowry and torture/harassment. Said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.422/2016 for the offences aforestated. After investigation charge sheet has been filed. In the meanwhile, in the pending M.C.No.3829/2016 matter came to be referred to mediation wherein parties are said to have entered into settlement as per the memorandum of settlement dated 12.12.2017. Said memorandum of settlement arrived at between parties also came to be accepted by the jurisdictional Family Court in M.C.No.3829/2016.
6. A perusal of said settlement would disclose that complainant-second respondent herein has agreed to receive the amount which had been mentioned therein and pursuant to same a sum of `5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) was paid to second respondent herein through demand draft by the first petitioner before the Family Court in M.C.No.3829/2016 including gold and silver articles as agreed to under the settlement and balance amount of `5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) has been paid through demand draft dated 02.02.2019 bearing No.102316 drawn on Canara Bank in favour minor son Master Rohan K. Bharadwaj, which is acknowledged by second respondent.
7. Second respondent, who is present before the Court reiterates the contents of joint memo and submits that she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. She further submits that without any force, threat or coercion and out of her own free will and volition she has entered into settlement and has affixed her signature to the said joint memo. Petitioners are also present before the Court and they are identified by their learned Advocate. A memo is filed enclosing photocopies of the identity cards of both parties issued by the statutory authorities and in token of identifying them respective learned Advocates have also affixed their signatures to the said joint memo.
8. In the light of aforestated facts, this Court is of the considered view that joint memo deserves to be accepted, since the complainant has agreed to withdraw the complaint lodged by her against the petitioners and as such continuation of proceedings against petitioners would not sub-serve the ends of justice or in other words, it not would serve any fruitful purpose. Even if the proceedings are continued against the petitioners, the complainant has become hostile and on the basis of present material available on record and it would not lead to conviction of accused persons.
9. 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 proceedings would not be conducive even in the interest of parties and it would be an abuse of process of law.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER (1) Criminal petition is allowed.
(2) Proceedings pending in C.C.No.28618/2016 registered against petitioners by Yeshwanthapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 498A r/w Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 is hereby quashed.
(3) Petitioners are acquitted of the said offences.
SD/- JUDGE DR/RU