Karnataka High Court
Sri Vikas Taneja vs State Of Karnataka on 22 February, 2019
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
1
CRL.P. NO.30/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.30 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VIKAS TANEJA
S/O RAJ KUMAR TANEJA
AGED 35 YEARS
2. SRI. RAJKUMAR TANEJA
S/O LATE M.C.TANEJA
AGED 70 YEARS
3. SMT. KAVITA TANEJA
WIFE OF RAJ KUMAR TANEJA
AGED 61 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.23138
PRESTIGE SHANTI NIKETAN
WHITE FIELD, BANGALORE-560 066 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. MELANIE SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KADUGODI POLICE STATION
KADUGODI, BANGALORE-560 067
2. SMT. MEGHALI BHATIA
W/O VIKAS TANEJA
AGED 31 YEARS
C/O COL. LALIT BHATIA
R/AT FLAT NO.611, TOWER A4
MALAPRABHA NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 047 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. GEETHA MENON, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
2
CRL.P. NO.30/2014
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2012 PASSED BY
THE A.C.J.M., BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.5995/2013
REGISTERING THE CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS WHO ARE ACCUSED
NOS.1 TO 3 IN THE SAID CASE AND QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BEFORE THE SAID COURT BY
THE FIRST RESPONDENT KADUGODI POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard Smt. Melanie Sebastian, learned advocate for the petitioners, Shri Nasrulla Khan, learned HCGP for the State and Smt. Geetha Menon, learned advocate for respondent No.2.
2. The criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of IPC have stemmed out of matrimonial dispute between the parties. Respondent No.2 is wife of petitioner No.1. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are parents of petitioner No.1. Learned advocates for the petitioners and respondent No.2 jointly submit that the parties have settled the matrimonial dispute amicably before the Bengaluru Mediation Centre and filed a memorandum of settlement in M.C.No.5332/2014. As per clause 6 of the said settlement, parties have agreed that 3 CRL.P. NO.30/2014 respondent No.2-wife would co-operate for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.5995/2013 pending on the file of ACJM, Bengaluru. Accordingly, they have filed individual Affidavits of even date in this petition, duly signed by petitioner No.1, respondent No.2 and their respective advocates with a prayer to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5995/2013. They pray that this petition be disposed of in terms of the said Affidavits.
3. The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are present and they are identified by their respective advocates. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are permitted to be represented by their advocate.
4. As per the consent terms, respondent No.2-wife has agreed to co-operate for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. She admits the terms of settlement stated in her Affidavit. The same is lawful and hence accepted. The affidavit of respondent No.2 reads as follows:
"AFFIDAVIT I, Meghali Bhatia, w/o Vikas Taneja, aged 36 years, r/o Flat No.611, Tower A4 Malaprabha National games Village, Koramangala, Bangalore 560047do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:4 CRL.P. NO.30/2014
1. I am the 2nd respondent in the above matter and conversant with the facts of the case and hence swearing as under:
2. The petitioner and I are husband and wife. That various disputes arose between the petitioners and I resulting in me filing a complaint before the Kadugodi Police Station in Cr.No. 4/2012 against the petitioners for offences under ss. 498A & s.34 of IPC r/w ss.3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A charge sheet came to be filed in CC 5995/2013 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore District, Bangalore for offences under s.498A, 406, 417 and 420 IPC r/w s.34 IPC and ss.3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. That the 1st petitioner had filed MC 5332/2014 for divorce on the file of the 1st Addl Principal Family Judge, Bangalore against me herein and the same is pending. That the 1st petitioner and I have amicably resolved the disputes and accordingly a mediation agreement was drawn up in MC 5332/2014 on 12.2.2019. The copy of the mediation agreement is enclosed herewith.
4. I state that as per Clause 6 of the mediation agreement the parties have agreed that the criminal case CC 5955/2013 may be quashed in the above petition. Under clause 5 of the agreement the 1st petitioner is required to pay me a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) towards my claim for alimony. As per clause 5 I have this day received the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (rupees twenty-five lakhs only) by way of demand draft drawn in my name. The copy of the demand draft is enclosed herewith. I state that the balance of Rs.25,00,000/- is being paid at the time of the dissolution of the marriage in MC 5332/2014.
I therefore pray that the proceedings in CC 5995/2013 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial 5 CRL.P. NO.30/2014 Magistrate, Bangalore District, Bangalore for offences under s.498A, 406, 417 and 420 IPC r/w s.34 IPC and ss.3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act arising out of Cr.No.4/2012 before the Kadugodi Police Station be quashed in the interest of justice". (sic)
5. Parties have settled the matrimonial dispute amicably. In the circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings. Therefore, it is just and appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings and accordingly all proceedings in C.C.No.5995/2013 pending on the file of ACJM, Bengaluru, are quashed.
6. Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE AV