Rithesh Kumar Singh vs Rashmi Singh 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.6610/2017

BETWEEN:

RITESH KUMAR SINGH
S/O. SRI. SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/A #309, WEST BLOCK,
GAYATHRI GOODLIFE,
SEEGEHALLI, BENGALURU-560067
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI.VIJAYA B.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. RASHMI SINGH
W/O. RITESH KUMAR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/A #309, WEST BLOCK,
GAYATHRI GOODLIFE,
SEEGEHALLI, BENGALURU-560067

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KADUGODI POLICE
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
BUILDING, BENGALURU – I
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.ROOPNANDAN H.J., ADV. FOR R-1;
SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-2)
2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRT IN CR.NO.138/2017 ON
THE FILE OF ACJM, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 4 D.P. ACT AND
SEC. 498A, 506, 504 OF IPC, REGISTERED PURSUANT TO
THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1.

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

ORDER

Petitioner, who has been arraigned as accused in

Cr.No.138/2017 registered by Kadugodi Police Station

by virtue of complaint lodged by first respondent herein

against the petitioner for the offences punishable under

Sections 506, 498A, 504 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961, is seeking for quashing of said

proceedings.

2. Today, both parties namely, complainant as

well as petitioner-accused have filed their affidavits

stating thereunder that complaint lodged by first

respondent is not being pursued, since at the

intervention of well wishers and friends and parents of

both parties, dispute is amicably resolved and they are

living together after having patched up their differences.
3

3. Sri.Vivek Raj has also filed an affidavit

supporting the claim of petitioner-accused. This Court

is of the considered view that it would not be necessary

to examine the said affidavit, since both parties namely,

petitioner-husband and first respondent-wife have filed

their respective affidavits. However, said affidavit of

Sri.Vivek Raj is placed on record.

4. In view of parties namely, petitioner and first

respondent have amicably settled their disputes and are

now residing together, continuation of proceedings in

Cr.No.138/2017 pending on the file of Addl. Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru,

against petitioner would be an exercise in futility and it

would not sub-serve the ends of justice and would also

be an abuse of process of law as held by the Apex Court

in the case of GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB

AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
4

ORDER

(i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) Proceedings in Cr.No.138/2017

pending on the file of Addl. Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural,

Bengaluru, against petitioner for the

offences punishable under Sections

506, 498A, 504 of IPC and Section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is hereby

quashed.

SD/-

JUDGE

DR

Leave a Comment

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