IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7662 OF 2016 BETWEEN VINAY GUPTA S/O VIMAL GUPTA R/O FLAT NO.K-01 DELHIRAJDHANI APARTMENTS PLOT NO.80, IP EXTENSION PATPARGANJ, NEW DELHI-92.
(BY SRI DEEPAK S SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND ...PETITIONER 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION AUTHORITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
2 . SAVERI NAYAK W/O VINAY GUPTA D/O NISHAN NAYAK R/O 1378/3, SECTOR 6 CDA, BIDANASI CUTTACK-753014.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1 SMT TRISHA CHANDRAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VIKAS MAHENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONER OFFENCE P/U/S 363 OF IPC IN P.S.
CR.NO.358/2016 FIR DATED 14.06.2016 REGISTERED AT HEBBAGODI P.S., ATTIBELE CIRCLE, BENGALURU, PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, ANEKAL.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Matter is called out. There is no representation for the petitioner. However, since a submission is made by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent- wife that the petition may be allowed in the interest of justice, this matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The 2nd respondent had lodged a complaint before the Hebbagodi Police Station, Attibele Circle, Bangalore District and a FIR was registered on 14.06.2016 against the petitioner- husband for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that there are other matrimonial disputes pending before the Courts in New Delhi and talks of settlement are also on between the parties. It is in this background a submission is made by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent to enable the settlement between the parties that the petition may be allowed and the FIR may be quashed.
3. In the light of the above, as fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, in order to enable the parties to have a settlement of their dispute before the Courts at New Delhi, though the petitioner is not represented today, the petition is allowed and the FIR registered on 14.06.2016 in Crime No.358/2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE KLY/