Apporv Ashok Badami vs State Of Karnataka on 11 September, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1727/2017

BETWEEN:

1. APOORV ASHOK BADAM
S/O. DR. ASHOK BADAMI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

2. MEENA ASHOK BADAM
W/O. DR. ASHOK BADAMI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

3. CHETHAN ASHOK BADAM
S/O. DR. ASHOK BADAMI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

ALL THE ABOVE R/AT B4 06,
TRI FECTA ESPLANADE APPARTMENTS,
BELATHUR, KADUGODI,
BANGALORE- 560 067
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. CHANDRA MOHAN K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KADUGODI POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE.

2. SUDHA APOORV BADAMI
W/O. APOORV ASHOK BADAMI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT DORR NO.30, 8TH MAIN,
2

7TH CROSS, SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSORE- 570 009
…RESPONDENTS

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

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.2967/2015 ON THE FILE OF II ACJM, BANGALORE
PERTAINING TO FIR NO.361/2014 ON THE FILEO F
KADUGODI P.S., BANGALORE.

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

ORDER

Petitioners who have been arraigned as accused

No.1 to 3 in C.C.No.2967/2015 registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A r/w Section

34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961, are seeking of quashing of said proceedings.

2. I have heard the arguments of Sri.Chandra

Mohan K., learned counsel appearing for petitioners,

Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for first

respondent-State and Sri.Gopinath, learned counsel

appearing for second respondent. Perused the case

papers.

3

3. Marriage between first petitioner and second

respondent came to be solemnised on 15.04.2012 at

Mysore and on account of certain disputes having

arisen, they were residing separately. Second

respondent herein filed a complaint on 09.12.2014

before first respondent – Kadugodi Police Station

alleging that she was being harassed by petitioners with

a demand for dowry. Second respondent also filed a

petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in Crl.Misc.

No.1/2015 she also filed a petition for restitution of

conjugal rights on the file of before JMFC-III Court,

Mysore and it came to be dismissed at the request of

parties, since it was stated before said Court that matter

was being settled. Subsequently, both parties filed a

petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955, in M.C.No.673/2016 for dissolution of their

marriage by mutual consent and said petition came to

be allowed by the I Addl. Prl. Family Court, Mysore by
4

judgment dated 07.08.2017. Certified copy of the same

has been placed on record.

4. In the light of marriage having been

dissolved, second respondent herein has filed an

affidavit dated 07.07.2017 stating thereunder that she

is not willing to prosecute the criminal case initiated by

her against the petitioners. In the light of said affidavit

filed, she has appeared before Court and submits that

out of her free own will and volition, without any force,

threat or coercion she has filed the said affidavit. She

also states that she has no objection for the proceedings

being quashed namely, proceedings in

C.C.No.2967/2015 pending before I Addl. Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Bangalore.

4. In order to establish the identity of parties

present before Court, learned Advocates appearing for

the parties have filed a memo enclosing photocopies of

the identity cards issued by the statutory authorities.

Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties have
5

also counter signed the said photocopies of the identity

cards. Said memo with enclosures are placed on record.

5. In the light of second respondent – wife

having agreed unconditionally to withdraw the

complaint filed before first respondent and she having

expressed her consent before this Court that she is no

more interested in prosecuting the complaint and she

has no objection for proceedings being quashed, this

Court is of the considered view that continuation of

proceedings in C.C.No.2967/2017 against petitioners

would not be in the interest of parties and it would be

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:

ORDER

(i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) Proceedings pending against

petitioners in C.C.No.2967/2015 on

the file of Addl. Chief Judicial
6

Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby

quashed.

(iii) Petitioners are acquitted of the

offences punishable under Section

498A r/w Section 34 of IPC and

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 *