SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

N C Umesh vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2014

Karnataka High Court N C Umesh vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2014Author: S.N.Satyanarayana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA CRL.P. No.3931/2013

C/W

CRL.P.No.2395/2011

CRL.P. No.3931/2013

BETWEEN :

1. N.C. UMESH,

S/O CHICKKEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

R/A VENKATESHWARA NILAYA,

#34/1, 2ND MAIN,

ATTHIGUPPE, VIJAYANAGAR,

BANGALORE-560040.

2. CHICKKEGOWDA,

S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

R/A BHAIRAVESHWARA NILAYA,

1ST MAIN, 7TH A CROSS,

HANUMANTHAPURA,

TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.

3. JAYAMMA

W/O CHICKKEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

R/A BHAIRAVESHWARA NILAYA,

1ST MAIN, 7TH ‘A’ CROSS,

HANUMANTHAPURA,

TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI KASHYAP N. NAIK, ADV.,) -2-

CRL.P.2395/2011

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. CHANDRAKALA,

W/O H.A.MOHAN,

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

C/O ESWARA NAIK M.H.,

MIG 40, OPPOSITE SRI VINAYAKA TEMPLE, HOUSING BOARD COLONY,

GOPALA EXTENSION,

SHIMOGA.

2. SMT.HEMALATHA.N.C.,

WIFE OF SANJAY T.H.,

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

RESIDING AT No.271,

LAKSHMI NIVASA, 6TH MAIN,

MICO LAYOUT,

BTM 2ND STAGE,

BANGALORE- 560 076.

3. SMT. PUSHPALATHA,

WIFE OF SEETHARAMU J.,

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

RESIDING AT RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,

MADHUGIRI TOWN,

TUMKUR DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI KASHYAP N. NAIK, ADV.,) AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY MICO LAYOUT POLICE, BANGALORE – 560 076.

2. SMT R.SAHANA,

D/O K .RAMAIAH,

-3-

AGED MAJOR,

R/A No.18, SIDDESHWARA NILAYA, 13TH CROSS,

NANDISH EXTENSION,

SIT, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572102. … COMMON RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1, R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) CRL.P No.3931/2013 IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:17.1.11 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN C.C.NO.1858/11 BY THE VI ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1858/2011. CRL.P No.2395/2011 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:17.01.2011 (ANNEXURE-A) OF TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES IN C.C.No.1858/2011 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN BY VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.

THESE CRL.Ps COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 4 to 6 in Crime No.469/2010 registered by MICO Layout Police Station, within the jurisdiction of VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore, are before this Court in these two criminal petitions. -4-

2. Admittedly, the aforesaid crime is with reference to offences punishable under Sections 498A and 323 IPC., read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is seen that petitioners in Crl. P. No.3931/2013 are accused Nos.1 to 3 i.e., husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of 2nd respondent – complainant. So far as Crl. P. No.2395/2011 is concerned, accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 are the sisters-in-law of 2nd respondent – complainant. The offences alleged against all the six accused are one and the same. Subsequently, the husband of 2nd respondent – N.C. Umesh has filed a petition in M.C. No.3559/2010 pending on the file of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, for the relief of decree of divorce against the complainant – R. Sahana.

3. It is seen that during the pendency of the proceedings in M.C. No.3559/2010, parties were referred to mediation, wherein the dispute between the parties is duly settled and memorandum of agreement is also drawn under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure -5-

(Mediation Rules) 2005, wherein in paragraph (vi), 2nd respondent herein, who is respondent in the said proceedings has unconditionally undertaken to withdraw the complaint lodged by her against accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.469/2010, which is subsequently, registered as C.C. No.1858/2011 on the file of VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. It is also seen that under the terms of settlement, the marriage between 2nd respondent -R. Sahana and her husband – N.C. Umesh is dissolved pursuant to a decree passed in M.C. No.3559/2010 on 18.04.2012.

4. However, it is the case of petitioners in both the petitions that pursuant to the decree of divorce, 2nd respondent – R. Sahana as well as 1st petitioner in Crl. P. No.3931/2013, namely, N.C. Umesh, have subsequently entered into marriage with different persons. 2nd respondent – Sahana has not come before Court to fulfill her obligation in terms of the settlement for withdrawing the complaint filed by her. Hence, in the present -6-

proceedings, notice was served on her and though notice was served, she has not come before Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners in both the petitions. On going through the offences alleged in these proceedings, it is clearly seen that the same are non-compoundable in nature. Therefore, even though the settlement is arrived at between the parties, same cannot be implemented in permitting the 2nd respondent to withdraw the complaint registered in Crime No.469/2010, which was subsequently, converted into C.C. No.1858/2011. However, under similar facts, the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ((2012) 10 SCC 303), would come to the rescue of petitioners, wherein their Lordships have held that though settlement cannot be arrived at in respect of non- compoundable offences, if the offences are relating to disputes involving matrimonial or financial matters and if parties have settled their dispute amicably, it is well -7-

within the discretion of the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the complaint taking note of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

6. In the light of the observations made in the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court and in view of the fact that the parties have already settled the dispute between themselves, the complaint lodged by 2nd respondent in Crime No.469/2010, which is subsequently converted into C.C. No.1858/2011, presently pending on the file of VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sma

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