SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri. Pradeep Talan vs State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF JUNE 2018

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2092 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

1. SRI.PRADEEP TALAN
S/O SUKHPAL SINGH
AGED 35 YEARS
R/A BUDHAKA VILLAGE, VAINA
TAPPLE POST
ALIGARH ALIGARH
UTTAR PRADESH – 202 165

2. SUKHPAL SINGH
FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED 70 YEARS
R/A BUDHAKA VILLAGE, VAINA
TAPPLE POST
ALIGARH ALIGARH
UTTAR PRADESH – 202 165

3. SMT.RAJENDRI,
W/O SUKHPAL SINGH
AGED 65 YEARS
R/A BUDHAKA VILLAGE, VAINA
TAPPLE POST
ALIGARH ALIGARH
UTTAR PRADESH – 202 165

4. SRI.SANDEEP
S/O SUKHPAL SINGH
AGED 33 YEARS
R/A BUDHAKA VILLAGE, VAINA
TAPPLE POST
ALIGARH ALIGARH
UTTAR PRADESH – 202 165
2

5. DEEPAK
S/O SUKHPAL SINGH
AGED 32 YEARS
R/A BUDHAKA VILLAGE, VAINA
TAPPLE POST
ALIGARH ALIGARH
UTTAR PRADESH – 202 165

6. SRI.MONU
S/O SUKHPAL SINGH
AGED 25 YEARS
R/A BUDHAKA VILLAGE, VAINA
TAPPLE POST
ALIGARH ALIGARH
UTTAR PRADESH – 202 165 … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.VINOD KUMAR M., ADV.)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY SHO ALL WOMEN
POLICE STATION
HALASURU GATE SUB DIVISION
BANGALORE
REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE – 560 001

2. SMT.ARCHANA
W/O PRADEEP TALAN
AGED 31 YEARS
NO.15, NANDINI NILAYA
GANAGAMMA GUDI
JALAHALLI
BANGALORE – 560 013 … RESPONDENTS

(SRI.S.RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1
SRI.MADHUSUDHANA N., ADV. FOR SMT.T.R.RAJESHWARI, ADV.
FOR R2)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the FIR in Cr.No.134/2014 of
3

Halsur Gate Women P.S. pending on the file of VI ACMM,
Bangalore.

This Petition coming on for Admission this day, the
Court made the following:-

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as

well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. The petitioners have sought for quashing of the

entire investigation in the FIR in Crime No.134/2014

which is according to the learned counsel for the

petitioners culminated in C.C.No.9589/2016 pending on

the file of 6th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bengaluru.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends

that the respondent No.2 herein is the wife of petitioner

No.1. There was some matrimonial dispute between

themselves and the same has been compromised

between the parties in M.C.No.110/2016 on the file of

the Family Court Judge at Bulandshahar, wherein the
4

parties have entered into compromise between

themselves and by virtue of the compromise, the Court

has granted the decree of divorce to the parties under

Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent

No.2 is represented by her counsel Sri.Madhusudhana.N

appearing for the learned counsel Smt.T.R.Rajeshwari

and he submits that inspite of his efforts he was not

able to get the party before the Court. However, there

is no dispute raised with regard to the matrimonial

dispute being resulted by way of divorce decree in

Bulandshahar Court in M.C.No.110/2016, after

compromise.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has

produced the certified copy of the judgment in the said

case i.e. in M.C.No.110/2016 which is in vernacular

Hindi language. The translated version of the judgment

in English is also produced before the Court wherein the

learned Judge, in the said case, has categorically

observed that, the 2nd respondent herein Archana and
5

the 1st respondent Pradeep Kumar have filed their

affidavits in support of their compromise petition i.e.

mutual consent petition filed before the Court. It is

submitted by both the parties particularly the 2nd

respondent in the affidavit that their marriage took

place on 06.06.2014 as per the Hindu rituals and they

were staying separately from 10.07.2014 and order for

divorce was requested on the basis of mutual consent

and she has no objection in issuing the decree for

divorce. Smt.Archana has submitted the certified copy

of order sheet in C.C.No.9589/2016 in the Court of 6th

Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and also

submitted the certified copy of the order dated

16.11.2016 passed by the said Court in which the 1st

party has stated that the petitioner has filed divorce

petition on mutual consent under Section 13B.

5. It is however observed in the said judgment

that, the husband and wife have entered into an

agreement for staying separately and also as per the
6

agreement Archana would receive a sum of

`12,00,000/- and withdraw the case in Crime

No.134/2014 for the offences under Sections 498A and

506 of IPC and she has no objection to grant divorce.

Therefore, the Court, recording the above said

compromise between the parties, granted the divorce

decree vide judgment dated 02.12.2016.

6. There is no reason to disbelieve the said

compromise between the parties infact recorded by a

competent judicial Court. Merely because the 2nd

respondent personally did not appear before this Court,

when the judgment of the Court in Bulandshahar as

noted above is accepted, there is no reason to

disbelieve the same.

7. In the above said circumstances, holding that

the parties have already compromised the matter, it is

just and necessary to quash the proceedings as prayed

for. Hence, I pass the following
7

ORDER

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the case in

C.C.No.9589/2016 arising out of FIR No.134/2014 on

the file of the 6th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bengaluru and also further proceedings therein for the

offences under Section 498A, 504 and 506 of IPC and

also Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act insofar as the

petitioners are concerned, is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV

Leave a Reply

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

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