1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2926 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
Sri. Pradeep Mahale,
S/o Shrikanth Mahale,
Aged about 33 years,
Resident of No.5, 5th Cross,
Kempegowda Layout,
Heggadenagar,
Bengaluru – 560 077.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri. Srinivas.N, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka by
Kothanur Police Station,
Bengaluru – 560 077.
SPP, High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Smt.Lalitha,
W/o Pradeep Mahale,
2
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at No.10, 5th Cross,
Kempegowda Layout,
Bengaluru – 560 077.
…RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Vijayakumar Majage, Additional
State Public Prosecutor for R-1
Shri B.R.Prabulinga Murthy, Advocate for R-2)
*****
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire
proceedings in C.C.No.53670/2015 pending against him on the
file of XI Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru for the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 506 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is said to have married the second
respondent in the year 2014. However, it transpires that there
were differences and the respondent was constrained to file a
criminal case alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A
and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. She has also filed a
3
divorce petition in MC 5526/2015 which was referred to
mediation and at the mediation, the parties have agreed to
reunite and to bury their differences. The matrimonial
proceedings were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. It is
also agreed between them that in order to enable them to live in
harmony, the criminal case ought to be dropped. Since the
offences alleged are non-compoundable, the petitioner is before
the court.
3. The petitioner is present along with the second
respondent and they both concede that they have buried their
differences and are ready to live in harmony. The petitioner
undertakes that he will never raise his hand to the respondent
and that he will treat her with respect and love. Such assurance
does not evoke the confidence of this court. It is made clear
that if the petitioner should ill-treat his wife, she is at liberty to
reopen the case.
4. In the meanwhile, however, the petition is allowed in
keeping with the law laid down by the apex court in Gian Singh
4
vs. State of Punjab (2011)10 SCC 303. The pending
proceedings in CC No.53670/2015 on the file of the XI
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore, stands
quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nv
