Karnataka High Court
Mr Chethan Tulasidas vs State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4304 OF 2021
BETWEEN
MR. CHETHAN TULASIDAS,
S/O TULASIDAS MUNIASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO C-305 GOPALAN,
HABITAT SPLENDOUR, IT PARK ROAD,
KUNDANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560037. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDESH J CHOUTA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY SADASHIVANAGAR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU - 560080,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. NIKHILA SAI,
D/O M HARINATH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
NO.3 JALADARSHINI LAYOUT,
OPP. BENGALURU ONE, BBMP OFFICE,
BENGALURU - 560054. ...RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI HARISH JAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
----
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED
10.09.2019 LODGED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-
A) AND THE FIR DATED 14.09.2019 IN CR.NO.108/2019
(ANNEXURE-B) REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1
POLICE AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT
THERETO IN C.C.NO.12389/2020 , PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE I ACMM, BANGALORE IN RELATION TO OFFENCES
U/S 507,354D,354A,509 OF IPC AND SEC.66E AND 67A OF
I.T ACT AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Harish Jayakumar, advocate for respondent no.2. Government Pleader is also present.
3
2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.12389/2020 on the file of 1st Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru. He has been prosecuted in relation to offences punishable under sections 354(A)(1), 354(A)(2), 354(A)(3), 354(A)(4), 354(D)(1), 354(D)(2), 507, 509 IPC and sections 66(E) and 67(A) of Information Technology Act on the allegations that he sent some obscene pictures and messages to the second respondent. FIR was registered at the instance of the second petitioner. Now, the petitioner has been charge sheeted. The second respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner to restrain him from interfering with her personal life and sending any text messages, emails or obscene messages on social media referring to her. In the suit, the petitioner and the second respondent have arrived at a settlement and they have filed a joint memo as per Annexure 'J'. One of the terms and 4 conditions of the joint memo is that in view of the settlement between the parties, the plaintiff i.e., the second respondent herein agreed to say 'no objection' for setting aside the said proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that in terms of the joint memo, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
4. Perusal of the FIR, charge sheet and the complaint in O.S.No.7131/2019 on the file of Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru clearly discloses that the dispute is purely personal between the petitioner and the second respondent. It appears that since the petitioner sent some obscene text messages, the second respondent resorted to approaching the police and filing the suit. Now that the parties have arrived at a settlement and the 5 second respondent, particularly has agreed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner, by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.12389/2020 on the file of I Addl. CMM, Bengaluru are quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE sd