Karnataka High Court Shekar @ Giridhar vs State on 21 April, 2014Author: S.N.Satyanarayana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA CRL.P.No.1757/2014

BETWEEN :

1. SHEKAR @ GIRIDHAR,

S/O LATE BASAVARAJU,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

2. SMT. MALINI,

W/O LATE. BASAVARAJU

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

BOTH ARE R/A

RAMPURA ROAD,

HULLAHALLI VILLAGE & HOBLI,

NANJANGUD TALUK 571415,

MYSORE DISTRICT. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI H.P.VEERABHADRASWAMY, ADV.,) AND :

1. STATE

BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

HULLAHALLI POLICE STATION,

NANJANGUD TALUK,

MYSORE DISTRICT,

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

BANGALORE – 560 001.

2. SMT. H.S. SOWMYA,

W/O SHEKAR,

D/O H.N. SADASHIVAPPA

-2-

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

R/A VEERABHADRASWAMY

TEMPLE ROAD,

HOSURU, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,

CHIKKABALLAPURA

DISTRICT – 562 101. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J.ESWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI NARENDRA D.V. GOWDA, ADV., FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF (CR.NO.96/11) C.C.NO.1091/11 FILED BY THE HULLAHALLI POLICE, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSORE, PENDING BEFORE THE PRL.C.J., (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, NANJANAGUD, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT. THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.1091/2011 on the file of JMFC., Nanjanagud, arising out of Crime No.96/2011 registered by Hullahalli Police Station, Nanjanagud, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, have come up in this petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid proceedings.

-3-

2. Admittedly, the said complaint is by 2nd respondent – wife against her husband, 1st petitioner and his mother, 2nd petitioner. Admittedly, the marriage between 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent took place on 15.06.2009 and thereafter, due to difference of opinion, they started living separately, which has resulted in the aforesaid proceedings being initiated under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. It is stated that subsequent to the 2nd respondent – wife filing the complaint against petitioners herein, 1st petitioner filed a petition in M.C. No.154/2011 for divorce under Section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Mysore. In the said proceedings, the parties were referred to mediation before the Mediation Centre, Mysore, wherein a memorandum of agreement was entered into between 1st petitioner herein and 2nd respondent herein under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2007. -4-

4. The said settlement, which was arrived at between the parties on 11.02.2014, was filed in M.C. No.154/2011 and the Family Court, by order dated 10/04/2014, accepting the settlement arrived at between the parties, dissolved the marriage between 1st petitioner herein and 2nd respondent herein while recording payment of `.7,60,000/- made by 1st petitioner to 2nd respondent towards permanent alimony. With this, it is seen that the relationship between the parties i.e., 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent has come to an end as husband and wife. Compromise petition is filed by the parties to this petition seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No.1091/2011 pursuant to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ((2012) 10 SCC 303). The same is taken on record.

5. Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties has been settled and in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Gian Singh`s case (supra), -5-

the compromise petition filed by the parties is taken on record. Accordingly, Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated by 2nd respondent against petitioners, in C.C. No.1091/2011 arising out of Crime No.96/2011 and pending on the file of JMFC., Nanjanagud, Mysore, are hereby quashed. Sd/-

JUDGE

sma