SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Abhay Valvekar vs Smt Pragathi B on 30 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court Abhay Valvekar vs Smt Pragathi B on 30 December, 2010Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

KN

THE HC)N’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA«,,’:C§O&?u[DT:u’ ‘ THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30″ DAY OF DECEMBER, 2om__ BEFORE

CRIMINAL PETITION |vl.O:6».–“ES7/Zéiivéf.-VI, V BETWEEN:

1

4; ‘SAINSALORE 72.

1

ABHAY VALVEKAR

S/O. ASHOK /ALVEKAR

AGED 26 YEARS.

ASHOK vAL.vEKAR”‘–.7 __ 3

S/O.T VALVEKAR I A

AGED 55 YEARS. .

SMT ARC}fA;§:A’,A vwAL}’,Ek.AR,.” 3 vvv/0,, KI :I,(A,Ev.E’RAVR ” ‘ ‘- AGED 49{Y_EAP;S, _ I

A£;–‘_- ARE R/AT”Y,’ifI~O’E.’5,. _1:RU,A<;YrINI NILAY/- 2″” MAIN. TEACHERS’jCOLO:IY

NAGAF<A,Es+~:AvjI CIRC’I:E

PETITIONERS

‘(BY”SRI~C’RRAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADV.) SMT R’RA<3ATHI B

‘W,/’O. ABHAY WALVEKAR

” AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

j:R/AT.NO.573,

” 90TH CROSS, K S LAYOUT,

BANGALORE.

IN.)

2 STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT

POLICE STATION.

RESPO.NDENTS

(BY SR: ii.S.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.P Is FILED U/8.482 CR.P.C BY THE’ AD_/OC”ATE* 4_ FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS _H.Ov_N~*ELE..”COURT’ ., ” MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE __FI.P.__Ii: CR.NO’.4Vi6/1.Q’TVOT: KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT P.S., BANGALORE CITY DATEEJ.jlTQ.9′._1_DA’ AND COMPLAINT PENDING ON THE”:FI;’E*~OF”TH’E_ .eA»CM.M~.?,, BANGALORE.

THIS PETITION COMING ‘QiE<.TFORV.O«RDE.RS, DAY, V THE COURT MADE THE T=OLLOYvINC1::._ . 1*” petitioner married ting~~’T…iS*:§;_réSpondent on 21.06.2009. the parents of

the 1%..pe’t’it.i.oir;er.aJKan”aecountdofv”incompatibility between the 15″.petitioneri”‘irahwndflt-h:e…~ 15’ respondent, differences having arisen, the ‘v1Sf’–.res~pVondent filed a Complaint before ~'”~._the._’:_j.”§7’d3_Irespond’e’r’ivt~,——«which was registered by the 2″” «Crime No.416/2010 and an FIR was

the 5″‘ Addi.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ‘;_Court, ~E3a’T;~gaiore. The Case was registered for the Offences A Sections 498»-A, S09 IPC and Sections 3 8: 4 of E2:

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The 2″” respondent has not yet filed the charge sheet.

2. The 1″ petitioner has fiied M.c.iieii.:’2i6ai9;fa2_ot.of’_ in the Family Court, Bangalore, seeking disS’oititvion:o’f,th.e marriage between herself and the,15§”‘retspon_d’ent. ‘F’etiti’o.n: having been referred to the”V_B-angaiore’ MedE,a’tio’n-.,Ce.ntre,wt” the parties have arrived at a s_e’tt.Jement…’Aimemforandum of agreement under Se’-ct”i’on been drawn on 23.12.2010, the petiti’o–nhe:i’, i”e$p,o}1d’ent and their learned adVQ.Cé[email protected]«,駒i’i’h_av.e’ Copy of the said agreement A?i.r1exu.re–<VC «to”‘t~h§s’§ petition. 3.1, l ThisVVp’e’t_i«tion..V_:h’asbeen filed to quash the FIR in Crime _No.=i;LE>/2010 registered by the 2″” respondent and to thVe”5″””Addi.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate V’ gCouTrt,_ Ba,hig.aii Q re,

N.Suresh Kumar, advocate, has entered R””‘–..V:”appear.a’nee on behalf of the 1″ respondent. The _dpet–i»ti.oiners and the 1″ respondent submitted a joint memo, it wherein, it has been stated that, they have decideig to put X’

an end to the matters by obtaining divorce and the 15′ respondent has stated that, she does not wish to co’nt.i,nue the case in Crime No.416/2010. The memo has..aiAs’o__’ signed by the iearned advocates appeayrir-tg’..A_for’ petitioners and the 1″ respondent.

5. The 15′ respondentais a Master De’g..ree,_ho3ider.,i* She is present before the cot.i”rt,::a!.ong her} mother. The 13′ respondent submitteed tjha’t’,’~e.tihe’r’e_ is settiement of dispute between._herse|.i?. the=..pe.ti’tione’r’s and that, she has ehteI~§d?,_.:V an 1:at;re,eme’nt:'”dated 23.12.2010 (Annexidre~~C)”.j;’ sd’bI’i1its that, she has received an offe”r_o’f’,_appoinntmentasj’Project Officer from the Centre for Environment:Edti~cati–o’n, Ahmedabad -~ 380 054 and “”~._,_wo._t{|’3d !.eaving’VB-angalore on 02.01.2011 to report for A copy of the offer of appointment

dated was placed on record.

The petitioners and the 1″ respondent ii*C§”,st.ii;tij_stted that, the joint memo dated 30.12.2010 be received on record and proceedings in Crime Nq.416/2010 ti:

registered by the Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, pending on the fiie of 5″‘ Addi.Chief Met’ro.,i§’oilrt.an Magistrate Court, Bangalore, be quashed.

7. From the above narrated-fa,cts_,, itis’ciear–.t’halt, the petitioners and the 15′ respondenitihavel’ente.re«d compromise and the 15′ res-pro~n,dent’ has–.,,u”nderta’ke’n to” withdraw ali proceedings fiieyd-“and’–in”i-ti_ated’byv her against the petitioners, which inVc_iud’e.s.i1’ti?’xe_:ca.seLiegistered at her instance by t.h,e:A”Z2f’d r;espon.de.nt«~:,lu–rider’:Eiections 498-A & of Dowry Prohibition

509 of IPC§ Vuin-d”er’

Act, 19’6’1′.«.:Tijie.;agtee’rne-nt’h’avinVo been reached at the Bangalore’ has been submitted to the Famiiy caurrti; – Vi X

«The co’rri’plaint was registered at the instance of “1,5′:::”r.esp’osn:dent due to temperamental differences and irnpiied Virnputations. Subsequently, a divorce petition was lqfiled a’n,d’i~the parties reached an amicable settlement at the “‘:”_’:”}a,n.-galore Mediation Centre. In the circumstances, there would almost be no chance of conviction.

9. In the case of B.S.JOSHI & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER, reported in 2003 Crl,L.J 2_Q28, it has been held that, the object of introducing Chapjterf”XX–.A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal_.,4C’ode«,:’wia’5 prevent the torture to a woman.;»iay..,her’_4′ by it relatives of her husband. Section’i449:8AA”lwals«added view to punishing the husb_an..d and.__hisu:rv=elativ’es”jwho”l harass or torture the wife to V,co–erce”h.e.r i’h~e.r,. relatives to satisfy unlawful demanldslof h;a’s.,been held that, a hyper–technicai productive and

would act and against the

object:’:for-.w’h.ic’nthepr’o.v’isio’n”was added. It was further observed likelihood that non–e><ercIse of injhlerent ponwervvto Aguash the proceedings to meet the Lends ofl’ju.stic’e,wou|d prevent women from settling down. “10v,.”i:l{eleping in view the said declaration of law by Ap”ex°iCourt and the fact that the 1″ respondent, who is ..,l_”‘wF.-1’:|,i_”educated, has decided to put an end to the matters between herself and the petitioners and also the fact that, _,.-v”””””””

Q.

3/1

she is intending to report for duty at Ahmedabad and settle down there itseif, in my opinion, it is exped~i.e:nti’and in the interest of justice to accept the joint “Vfi’Ij’e~d the parties and quash the _case_ 4 1 SE.’ “

respondent at the instance of the ?.’_'”‘j~”respondenL:§,,..,,Tii1.e settlement between the petitioner 1*?’ respondent, as regard th,e.i.r:’~.matrimonial_ ‘dispute is concerned being genu’i’ne,an’d__ ,i_r1 the interest of the 15’ respondent, who~h’as.”decide.ditoiisettle down by reporting memo filed in

the pet.iti.Qn'”‘is’_”accepted; ; ” In the result, V-‘ailowed and the case registered b),Lthe resipoindenst in Crime 530.416/2010 andftl”‘i’e AFief’stieebm’eitted sine 5″‘ Add|.Chief Metropoiitan . Magistrate_,C0:i:r”t,LBa’r:,gvaiore, is hereby quashed. Sdj’-

§UEGE

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation