IN THE HIGH COURT OF KAR.NATAK..A CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 241’11 DAY OP AUGUST, 2011 BEPORE THE HONBL6 MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO CRL.P.NO. 10309] 2011 Cr1. P.N. 1 06 :1 118 2011 InC ri. P. No.1OjQ9jO1I: Between: Sri.Chambanna S/o.Basappa Haladotar, Age 44 years, 0cc.: Agriculture, R/o.: Haladotar Street, Annigeri. Tq. : Navalgund. DisL: Dharvad. Petitioner (By Sri.Rajashekar Gunjalli, Advocate) And: 1. The State of IKarnataka. By SPP High Court of Karriataka, Circuit Bench, Dharvad. 2. Sri.Somashekar S/o.Chambanna Ahigeri. Age 47 years, 0cc.: Agriculture, R/o.Abigeri dinning Compound. Gadag, Tc 1. & Dist.: Gadag. Respondents (By Sri.V, S. Kulkarni, HCGP for RI. Sri.A,C. Chakalabbi, Adv. for R2) This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to cuash charge sheet filed by the I respondent as per Annexure-B and impugned order passed by the Is Addi. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM, Dharwad, in C.C.No.437/2010 dated 29.12.2010 as per Annexure-C in respect of accused No.2/petitioner No.2. -2- In Crl.P.No.10618/2011: Between: 1. Smt.Nagaratna W/o.Somashekar Abbigeri, Aged about 38 years, 0cc.: Household work, R/o.: Keri Oni, Near Market Post. Annigeri, Tq.: Navalgund, Dist.:Dharwad. 2. Smt.Annawwa W/o.Muttappa Ganiger, Aged about 41 years, 0cc.: Household work, Rio.: Navalgund, Dist.: Dharwad. 3. Muttappa (alias Basavaraj) Ganiger, Aged about 46 years, 0cc.: Agriculture, R/o.: Navalgund, Dist.: Dharwad. Petitioners (By Sri.Mallikarjunswany B.Hiremath, Advocate) And: I. The State of Karnataka, By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Dharwad. 2. Somashekar S/o.Chambanna Abbigeri, Aged about 47 years, 0cc.: Buiness, R/o.Abbigeri Jinning Compound, Gadag, Tq. & Dist.: Gadag. Respondents (By Sri.V.S.Kulkarni, HCGP for RI. Sri.A.C.Chakalabbi, Adv. for R2.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the charge sheet filed on 29.12.2010 by 1st respondent/State consequently quash the order dated 29.12.20 10 passed by the 1-AddI. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM, Dharwad in C.C.No.437/2010 for the offences p/u/Ss.143, 147, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 149 of IPC against accu 4 sed Nos. 1, 4 and 5. a These petitions are comingx on for adrmssion this day. the court made the following: ORDER It is seen that the petitionerwife did not appear before the Mediation and hence, the Mediation Center has reported that Mediation has failed. 2. These two petitions are filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.437/2010 pending before the 1 Add itional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) CJ M, Dharwad, The complainant is the husband and the 1st accused is the wife. The marriage between them has taken place about 18 years back and there is a discord in their matrimonial relationship. A2 is the family friend. A4 is the sister of Al and A5 is the husband of A4, A3 is the brother of Al. 3. it is the case of the complainant that on 12.08.2010, when the parties had appeared before the Court for a divorce proceedings between the complainant and accused No. I, the accused No. 1 along with her relatives and friends assaulted the complainant and the complainant has filed a private complaint in P.C.No.40/2010 . After referring -4- the matter to investigation, the Police have filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. Since, the matter is relating to the matrimonial dispute between the complainant and petitioner No. I, this Court thought fit that a compromise could be arrived at and hence, the matter is referred to Mediation Center. However, the petitioner accused No. I has not participated in the said proceedings. Hence, Mediation Center has reported that the Mediation efforts have failed. Accused No.3 has not challenged the proceedings pending before the Magistrate. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the accused and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. It is seen that there are specific overt acts against the petitioners and therefore. the matter cannot be decided unless there is a compromise. Since, the compromise efforts are failed, the petitions do no survive for quashing the proceedings and hence, the petitions are dismissed. 5. It is seen that the offences now found by the Police are trivial in nature and hence, the petitioners are exempted from the appearance before the Court below and they are permitted to appear through their counsel. The trial Court shall insist appearance only when the presence is absolutely required and on all other dates they shall he represented by their counsel, it is further directed that the entire case shall he dispose of within 3L12.2011. Sd/u JUDGE V np *