Sri. Rohan Kumar Rangarao Jadhav vs Smt. Leena Garudeshwaran on 14 August, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5875/2017

BETWEEN:

ROHAN KUMAR RANGARAO JADHAV
S/O. RANGARAO BAPU JADHAV
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4/1, BRIGHT FARM,
THUBRAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 061

NOW R/AT 107, 3RD CROSS,
DOCTOR’S LAYOUT,
KASTURINAGAR,
BANGALORE – 560 043
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. LEENA GARUDESHWARAN
W/O. ROHAN KUMAR RANGARAO
JADHAV, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO.5 C,
BRIGHT FARM, THUBRAHALLI,
VARTHUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 062

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS VARTHUR POLICE
STATION, BANGALORE.

NOW REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR
2

HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BANGALORE – 560 001
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RAJESH GOWDA, ADV. FOR R-1;
SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1611/2016 ON THE FILE OF
THE II A.C.J.M., BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALOR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3, 4 OF D.P. ACT
AND U/S 498A OF IPC ACT IN THE ABOVE PETITION.

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.123/2015 has sought for quashing of said

proceedings in C.C.No.1611/2016 pending on the file

of II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural

District, Bangalore, whereunder petitioner has been

charged for the offences punishable under Sections 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section

498A of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri.Harish H.V., learned counsel

appearing for petitioner, Sri.Rajesh Gowda A.N,
3

learned counsel appearing for first respondent and

Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for second

respondent-State. Perused the records.

3. Marriage between petitioner and first

respondent herein was solemnised on 26.11.2007 in

Guruvayur Temple at Kerala, which was duly

registered before the Registrar of Marriage, Varthur,

Bangalore. On account of irretrievable differences

having arisen between parties, marriage is said to

have been broken down and petitioner herein had

filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in

M.C.No.1875/2015 on the file of Family Court,

Bengaluru. In the said proceedings matter came to

be referred to Mediation Centre and settlement was

arrived at between parties and as agreed to between

parties therein, marriage solemnised on 26.11.2007

was agreed to be dissolved and terms agreed to

between the parties was reduced into writing by way

of settlement, which is at document No.5.
4

4. In the meanwhile, first respondent herein

had filed a complaint against petitioner alleging

harassment for dowry, which came to be registered as

Cr.No.123/2015 and on completion of investigation,

charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.1611/2016.

5. Today both parties have appeared before

Court namely, petitioner and first respondent and

have filed a joint memo whereunder they have stated

that on account of divorce having been granted by the

jurisdictional Family Court, first respondent-

complainant is not interested to prosecute the

complaint lodged by her and she has no objection for

quashing the proceedings pending in

C.C.No.1611/2015. She has further reiterated the

contents of Joint Memo and submits that without any

force, threat or coercion she has affixed her signature

to the Joint Memo.

6. Petitioner is also present before Court and

he has also reiterated the terms agreed before the
5

Family Court in M.C.No.1875/2015. Learned

Advocates appearing for parties have filed a memo

enclosing the photocopies of the identity cards issued

by statutory authorities to establish the identity of

parties present before Court.

7. In the light of aforestated facts and taking

into consideration the principles laid down by the

Apex Court in the case of GIAN SINGH VS. STATE

OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 10

SCC, this Court is of the considered view that

continuation of further proceedings in

C.C.No.1611/2016 would not sub-serve the ends of

justice and it 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 C.C.No.1611/2016

pending on the file of II Addl. Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural
6

District, Bangalore, is hereby

quashed.

(iii) Petitioner is acquitted of the offences

under Section 498-A of Cr.P.C. r/w

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961.

SD/-

JUDGE

DR

Leave a Comment

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