T M Kumaraswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1942 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

1. T.M.Kumaraswamy,
S/o Madappa,
Aged 52 years,
R/at: C/o Dr.Rajashekhar,
8th Cross, Near Anith Convent,
NES Colony,
Malavalli Town,
Mandya District – 571 430.

2. Srinivasa,
S/o Madappa,
Aged 47 years,
R/at: No.1104, 10th Cross,
EF Block,
Ramakrishna Nagara,
Mysuru.

3. Lalithamma @ Kempamma,
W/o Madappa,
Aged 67 years,
R/at: No.1104, 10th Cross,
2

EF Block,
Ramakrishna Nagara,
Mysuru.
…PETITIONERS

(By Shri Prakash M.H., Advocate)

AND:

1. State of Karnataka,
By Women Police Station,
Mysuru City, Mysuru
Through the State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru – 560 001.

2. Smt. Roopa,
W/o T.M.Kumaraswamy,
Aged 31 years,
R/at: C/o Dr.Rajashekhar,
8th Cross, Near Anith Convent,
NES Colony,
Malavalli Town,
Mandya District – 571 430.
…RESPONDENTS

(By Shri Vijayakumar Majage, Additional
State Public Prosecutor for R-1
Shri R.Srinivasa Gowda, 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 pursuant to filing of the charge sheet by the
respondent No.1 in C.C.No.210/2017 which is pending before
3

the IV Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and JMFC, Mysuru for
the offence punishable under Section 498A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC
and Section 3, 4, of D.P.Act, against the petitioners.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the
court made the following:

ORDER

Shri R.Srinivas seeks to enter appearance for respondent

no.2.

READ  Mr. Vijay Kumar @ Viji Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 20 May, 2014

2. The parties are present before the before.

3. The first petitioner is said to be married to the second

respondent in the year 2006 and they have a girl child. It

transpires that there were differences and they had fallen apart.

The second respondent has instituted criminal proceedings

against the first petitioner and his family members. It now

transpires that there has been conciliation and the first petitioner

and the second respondent are living together. The second

respondent does not wish to continue the criminal proceedings.

However, since the offences alleged are non-compoundable, the

present petition is filed.

4

4. The second respondent, who is present in court, would

concede that she does not press the criminal case.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings

pending against the petitioner in CC No.210/2007 on the file of

the IV Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC,

Mysore stands quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nv

Leave a Comment

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