Jayavardhan Bhimanayak Kimavat vs State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2017

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101914/2017

BETWEEN:

1. JAYAVARDHAN BHIMANAYAK KIMAVAT
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: PVT. JOB,
R/O: CHIKKAJOGIHALLI TANDA,
KUDLIGI,
BALLARI DISTRICT.

2. JANARDHAN BHIMANAYAK KIMAVAT
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PVT. JOB,
R/O: CHIKKAJOGIHALLI TANDA,
KUDLIGI,
BALLARI DISTRICT.

3. BHIMANAYAK GOPYANAYAK KIMVAT
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKAJOGIHALLI TANDA,
KUDLIGI,
BALLARI DISTRICT.

4. SMT.BHAGYALAXMI BHIMANAYAK KIMVAT
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: CHIKKAJOGIHALLI TANDA,
KUDLIGI,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R M JAVED, ADV.)
:2:

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GHATAPRABHA P.S.,
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.

2. SEEMA JAYAVARDHAN KIMVAT
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: CHENNAPUR SLT, RAMDURGA,
NOW AT: C/O.L.D.LAMANI
NANDAGOKUL, 22ND CROSS,
12TH MAIN ROAD, BANASHREE NAGAR,
DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1
SRI R.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT
AND FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NO. 1 TO
4) IN C.C.NO. 130 OF 2016 (GHATPRABHA POLICE
STATION CRIME NO. 346 OF 2014) PENDING ON THE FILE
OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOKAK FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A, 325,
504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3
AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:3:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on

office objection.

2. I have perused the records of the case.

Office objection is over-ruled.

3. Sri R.S.Patil, learned counsel filed power on

behalf of respondent No.2/complainant.

4. Petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 are present. The

respondent No.2/complainant is also present. Learned

counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned

counsel for respondent No.2, so also, learned HCGP for

respondent No.1 are present.

5. Parties have moved the joint memo, it is

signed by petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4, so also, respondent

No.2. Learned counsel on both sides have also signed

the joint memo.

:4:

6. Perusing the joint memo, it is stated that the

matters are settled between the parties amicably in view

of the advice by the elders. In the joint memo at

paragraph No.5 it is stated that totally Rs.13,00,000/-

(Thirteen Lakhs only) has been paid by petitioner No.1

to respondent No.2 as full and final settlement including

the permanent alimony.

7. The complainant/respondent No.2, who is

personally present, when enquired, submitted that she

has received Rs.13,00,000/- (Thirteen Lakhs only) by

way of Demand Drafts, which was credited to her bank

account.

8. In view of the said compromise, the parties

have sought for compounding the offences as they

wanted to settle the matter amicably.

9. The compromise is accepted and the parties

are permitted to compound the offences punishable
:5:

under Section 498A, 325, 504, 506 read with Section 3

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent

Police Station Crime No.346/2014.

10. In view of the said compromise and the

permission granted to the parties to compound the

offences, petition is allowed and the proceedings,

challenged in this petition, are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BSR

Leave a Comment

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