Karnataka High Court
R Santosh Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 July, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2617/2017
BETWEEN:
1. R. SANTOSH KUMAR
S/O. RANGANATHAN
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
2. N.RANGANATHAN
S/O. LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
3. KUMARI VIJAYASHRI
D/O. N. RANGANATHAN
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE R/A
NO.617, 10TH CROSS,
ITI LAYOUT, 3RD PHASE,
OPP. TO R.R.ARCH,
MYSORE, BANGALORE - 560 039
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANAND R.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RMC YARD POLICE STATION
BANGALORE CITY - 560 022
2. SMT.B.V. RAMYA @ LAKSHMI
D/O. G.K.VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT NO.22, 1ST MAIN,
2ND BLOCK,
2
LAKSHMI FANCY STORE,
GORUGUNTEPALYA,
BANGALORE - 560 022
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SANDESH CHOUTA, SPP FOR R1;
SRI. FAYAZ SAB B.G., ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN
C.C.NO.6640/2016 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A) R/W
34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT ON THE FILE OF IX ADDL. C.M.M.,
BANGALORE INITIATED BY RESPONDENT NO.2.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners who have been arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.6640/2016 registered by RMC Yard Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending on the file of IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore 3 City, Bangalore, are seeking for quashing of said proceedings.
2. Sri.Fayaz Sab, learned counsel appearing for the complainant i.e., second respondent has filed an affidavit of second respondent whereunder she has stated that she had filed a petition for maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.14/2016 and an agreement came to be entered into before the Mediation Centre on 17.06.2017 and she has received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. She has also further stated that M.C.No.2908/2016 filed under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act by herself and first petitioner herein for dissolution of marriage, also ended in an agreement entered into between her and first petitioner on 19.01.2017 under which she has received further sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and she has deposed that in all she has received a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in full and final settlement as permanent alimony from first petitioner.
4
3. Order sheet of trial Court in M.C.No.2908/2016 recording the compromise petition is also appended to the present petition. Pursuant to same, decree has been drawn on 19.01.2017 dissolving the marriage between the first petitioner and second respondent herein.
4. Second respondent is present before the Court and she admits the execution of affidavit as also compromise. She has entered into compromise with first petitioner before the Family Court. She has also stated that she has no objection for allowing the petition and quashing the proceedings. She has submitted that out of her own free will and volition and without any force, threat or coercion she has filed the affidavit before this Court and she has no objection for the proceedings being quashed.
5. First petitioner who is present before the Court also admits that marriage between himself and second respondent has been dissolved by virtue of decree passed in MC No.2908/2016. In that view of the 5 matter, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings in C.C.No.6640/2016 would not serve the ends of justice and it would be an abuse of process of law.
6. Petitioners 1 and 2 and second respondent, who are present before Court are identified by their respective learned Advocates. They have also filed a memo enclosing photocopies of their identity cards and in token of having identified them, learned Advocates have also affixed their signatures on the photocopies of identity cards appended to the memo.
7. Keeping in mind the principles laid down in the case of GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, present proceedings are liable to be quashed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed. 6
(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.6640/2016 pending before the IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, Bangalore, against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE DR