1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3165 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. K.S. Sunil,
S/o. Somashekar K. B.,
Aged about 29 years,
Residing at Chethana Nilaya,
1st floor, 14th Cross,
S. I. T. Extension, Tumkur Town,
Tumkur District – 572 103.
2. Smt. Hemalatha,
W/o. Somashekar K. B.,
Aged about 55 years,
Residing at Chethana Nilaya,
1st floor, 14th Cross, S. I. T. Extension,
Tumkur Town,
Tumkur District – 572 103.
3. Sri. Somashekar K. B.,
S/o. Byatarangaiah,
Aged about 61 years,
Residing at Chethana Nilaya,
1st floor, 14th Cross, S. I. T. Extension,
2
Tumkur Town,
Tumkur District – 572 103.
… Petitioners
(By Shri. Kashinath J. D., Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
New Extension Police Station,
Tumkur Town,
Represented by SPP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore 560 001.
2. Smt. H. P. Shruthi,
W/o. K. S. Sunil,
D/o. Prakash,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at Behind Lakshmi Floor Mill,
Haridasanahalli Village,
Neeragunda Post, Turuvekere Taluk,
Tumkur District – 572 225.
… Respondents
(By Shri. Vijayakumar Majage,
Additional State Public Prosecutor for R.1,
Shri. A. V. Gangadharappa and
Shri. M. Mallikarjunaiah, Advocates for R.2)
This Criminal Petition is filed Under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, praying that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to quash the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.190/2014 for
the offences P/U/S 498A, 307 and 323 R/W 34 of IPC and
Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, 1961 and also Quash the FIR
3
registered in Crime No.68/2014 registered on the complaint of
Respondent No.2 for the offences P/U/S 498A, 307 and 323
R/W 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, 1961 pending
on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and C.J.M. Court,
Tumkur.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Counsel Shri A.V.Gangadharappa appearing for
respondent no.2.
2. The first petitioner is said to be the husband of the
second respondent and petitioners – 2 and 3 are the parents of
petitioner no.1. It transpires that since the marriage of
petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 had broken down, the
second respondent had thought it fit to range criminal
proceedings against her husband and has named the present
petitioners as the accused. It transpires that insofar as the
matrimonial dispute between the second respondent and
petitioner no.1 has been sorted out and it was also agreed that
4
the case instituted against the petitioners would be dropped.
However, since the offences are non-compoundable, the
present petition.
3. The second respondent is present before the court and
is represented by counsel and concedes that the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners could be closed.
Accordingly, having regard to the law laid down by the
apex court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC
303, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in CC
No.190/2014 pending on the file of the I Additional Civil
Judge (Senior Division) and CJM, Tumkur stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nv
