Karnataka High Court
Naveen Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2017
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7122 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. Naveen Kumar,
Son of Narayana Hegde,
Aged about 33 years,
Residing at Sanjana Nivas,
Nandila, Puttur,
Dakshina Kannada District.
2. Narayana Hegde,
Son of Late Somappa Hegde,
Aged about 63 years,
3. Smt. Susheela,
Daughter of Narayana Hegde,
Aged about 56 years,
4. Smt. Hemalatha,
Daughter of Narayana Hegde,
Wife of Karunakar Hegde,
Aged about 36 years,
Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are
2
Residing at 1-242,
Nitte Block-I,
Near ZPHP School,
Nitte,
Udupi - 574 110.
...PETITIONERS
(By Shri Aruna Shyam M., Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By Town Police Station,
Tiptur Taluk,
Tumkur District.
Represented by its
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Smt. Ramya N. Hegde,
Wife of Naveen Hegde,
Daughter of Narayan K. Hegde,
Aged about 24 years,
Residing at House No.4,
Sridevi Nilaya,
B.H.Road, Bandihally,
Tiptur Town - 572 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri B. Visweswaraiah, Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1;
Shri K.A.Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
*****
3
This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the order dated
13.1.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial
Magistrate First Class Court, Tiptur, in C.C.No.72/2015
including charge sheet for the offence punishable under
Sections 498A, 323 read with 34 of IPC and Section 6(1)(2)
and 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and F.I.R. registered by the First
Respondent Police and complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.,
filed by the second respondent and allow this petition.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
The counsel is permitted to carry out the correction insofar as the petitioner's name is concerned, in the causetitle. I.A.1/2016 is allowed accordingly.
2. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 were married in the year 2013. However, their marriage is said to have been a fall out. There were criminal proceedings initiated by Respondent No.2 against the petitioner and his family members. Thereafter, a matrimonial case was also filed in M.C.No.47/2013, which was said to have been referred to mediation. At the mediation, there was a settlement, whereby it 4 was agreed that there would be a divorce decree by mutual consent. Accordingly, a divorce has been granted. It was also agreed that the criminal proceedings could be quashed. However, since the offences alleged were non-compoundable, the criminal proceedings could not be quashed. Now, a memo is filed reporting the settlement and the terms thereof, whereby a sum of Rs.7 lakh has been paid in full and final settlement of the claim of the Respondent No.2 towards permanent alimony.
3. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another ((2012) 10 SCC 303, petition is allowed. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.72/2015 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & JMFC, Tiptur, stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS