Sirsendu Roy vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 August, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6350/2017

BETWEEN:

SIRSENDU ROY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O. SRI.NIRMALENNDU ROY,
ANSALDO STS TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD.
SLV COMPLEX, #35, 80 FEET ROAD,
4TH BLOCK, AVS COMPOUND,
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU – 560 034
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. JAMES P. ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU – 560 001

2. SMT. ANAMIKA ROY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
W/O. SRI. SIRSENDU ROY,
R/A D-702, PURVA BELMOUNT,
KANAKAPURA ROAD,
6TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 078
…RESPONDENTS
2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH OF CRIME NO.1782/2016
BEFORE THE 44TH A.C.M.M., BENGALURU, WHICH
RESULTED OUT OF THE FIR REGISTERED AS CRIME
NO.41/2016 WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT/POLICE, BASED
ON A COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioner and second respondent marriage came

to be solemnised on 11.05.1995 at Kolkata and on

account of certain disputes having arisen between them,

they have been residing separately and second

respondent herein had filed M.C.No.2670/2014 on the

file of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru for

dissolution of her marriage by filing petition under

Section 27(1)(a) (d) of Special Marriage Act.

2. During the pendency of said petition, she

had also lodged a complaint with Kumaraswamy Police

Station against petitioner herein alleging cruelty and

Domestic Violence on 26/27.01.2016, which came to be

registered in Cr.No.41/2016 for the offences punishable

under Sections 312, 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4
3

of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and it is at the stage of

investigation.

3. In the meanwhile, petitioner and second

respondent are said to have arrived at a settlement in

the pending M.C.No.2670/2014 and an agreement came

to be drawn between parties in the mediation that took

place on 28.07.2017. The memorandum of agreement

entered into between parties before the mediation

proceedings is produced at Annexure-B. It is agreed to

by second respondent-complainant under the said

agreement that she would withdraw the complaint

lodged against petitioner and also give her consent for

quashing of the proceedings initiated by her against

petitioner now pending in Cr.No.41/2016 before 44th

Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

4. Pursuant to same joint affidavit of petitioner

and second respondent is filed today. Both parties are

present before Court. They are identified by the

respective learned Advocates representing them. They

have also filed a memo enclosing the photocopies of
4

identity cards issued by the statutory authorities to

establish their identity. Learned Advocates appearing

for parties have also counter signed the said

photocopies of identity cards. Said memo along with

enclosures are placed on record.

5. Complainant, who is present before Court

and who is also deponent to joint affidavit filed today,

submits that without any force, threat or coercion she

has affixed her signature to the memorandum of

agreement and she has no objection for the proceedings

pending against petitioner being quashed. She also

submits that pursuant to settlement arrived at before

Mediation Centre and as agreed to by petitioner, he has

paid a sum of ` 2,00,000/- to her by way of Demand

Draft and she has received the same. In that view of the

matter, this Court finds there is no impediment to

accept the statement made by the complainant for

quashing of the proceedings in question particularly in

the background of both parties having settled their

dispute and also keeping in mind the law laid down by
5

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GIAN SINGH VS.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER reported in (2012)

10 SCC 303, this Court is of the considered view that

continuation of further proceedings would not sub-serve

the ends of justice and would be an abuse of process of

law.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) Proceedings in Cr.No.41/2016

pending on the file of 44th Addl. Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru,

initiated by second respondent

against petitioner is hereby quashed.

SD/-

JUDGE

DR

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *