High court allowed to quash the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under dowry prohibition act: Karnataka High court

BEFORE IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.5473 OF 2021 1. VIJAY A R. AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S O RAMAKRISHNA RAO A.V. R AT NO.1 7TH CROSS NEAR SARVODAYA PUBLIC SCHOOL VIDYAMANANAGARA ANDRAHALLI VISWANEEDAM POST BENGALURU 91. 2. SMT.A.S.LOKAMBA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS W O RAMAKRISHNA RAO R AT NO.1 7TH CROSS NEAR SARVODAYA PUBLIC SCHOOL VIDYAMANANAGARA ANDRAHALLI VISWANEEDAM POST BENGALURU 91. 3. RAMAKRISHNA RAO A.V. AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S O LATE C.S.VASUDEVAIAH R AT NO.1 7TH CROSS NEAR SARVODAYA PUBLIC SCHOOL VIDYAMANANAGARA …PETITIONERS ANDRAHALLI VISWANEEDAM POST BENGALURU 91. 4. SANJAY A.R. AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S O RAMAKRISHNA RAO R AT NO.1 7TH CROSS NEAR SARVODAYA PUBLIC SCHOOL VIDYAMANANAGARA ANDRAHALLI VISWANEEDAM POST BENGALURU 91. 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SHO BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION BANGALORE 19. 2. SMT.SWATHI.K. AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS D O S.KESHAVAMURTHY NO.22 1ST MAIN 7TH CROSS RAGHAVENDRANAGAR LAYOUT NEAR ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD VISHWANEEDAM POST BENGALURU 91. BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY HCGP FOR R1 R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IN C.C.NO.11197 2019 CHARGE SHEET CHARGES 3 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF C.J.M. RURAL COURT) BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.P.. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION CONFERENCING THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings in C.C.No.11197 2019 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Rural Court Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 498A 506 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 Cr.No.478 2018. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 State. Respondent No.2 served and unrepresented. 4 The case of the prosecution that on the complaint of respondent No.2 Swathi who is the wife of petitioner No.1 the Police on 15.08.2018 registered a case in Cr.No.478 2018 wherein she has alleged that accused No.1 married her and subsequently all the accused harassed her for dowry in spite of having given dowry and Rs.10 Lakhs being spent towards marriage expenses. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint respondent No.2 also filed a matrimonial case before the Senior Civil Judge Bengaluru Rural District in M.C.No.157 2019 and the said case was referred to the Bengaluru Mediation Centre which was settled between the parties by way of memorandum of settlement. While settling the dispute between the parties at paragraph 4 of the memorandum of settlement it has been stated that respondent No.2 has agreed to close the criminal proceedings in CC.No.11197 2019 and the divorce has been granted by the Trial Court based upon 5 the settlement and withdrawing all other pending cases against the petitioners herein. In spite of the settlement between the parties respondent No.2 has not chosen to co operate with the petitioners for closing the matter in criminal cases. Therefore the petitioners are before this Court. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties especially on perusal of the memorandum of settlement executed between the parties before the Mediation Center in respect of M.C.No.157 2019 dated 26.03.2021 wherein it is clearly mentioned that respondent No.2 shall co operate for closing of the criminal matter. In view of the settlement between the parties the respondent No.2 is not co operating with the petitioners for closing the proceedings. Once the matter has been settled between the parties and divorce has been granted continuing the proceedings in criminal case would 6 amount to abuse of process of law and in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State Of Punjab & Another reported in 2012 Crl.LJ 4934 the criminal proceedings shall have to be quashed. Accordingly I pass the following The petition is allowed. C.C.No.11197 2019 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Rural Court Bengaluru is hereby quashed. NR Sd 

Summary: The criminal petition is filed by petitioner/accused to quash the criminal proceedings against him, pending before civil judicial magistrate for the offence punishable under section 498A ( speaks about Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 506 (speaks about criminal intimation), 504 ( speaks about intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) read with Section 34 of IPC (which speaks about act done by several person in furtherance of common intention) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the petition is allowed by High court of Karnataka through learned single bench led by the Honorable Mr justice K. Natarajan in the case between Vijay A R vs state of Karnataka (C.P. NO 5473/2021) on 13th January 2021. Brief facts of the case are that the case of the prosecution that on the complaint of respondent Swathi, who is the wife of petitioner, the Police on 15.08.2018 registered a case, wherein she has alleged that petitioner/accused married to her and subsequently, all the relatives of the accused used to harass her for dowry in spite of having given dowry and Rs.10 Lakhs being spent towards marriage expenses. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, respondent also filed a matrimonial case before the Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District and the said case was referred to the Bengaluru Mediation Centre, which was settled between the parties by way of memorandum of settlement. While settling the dispute between the parties, at paragraph 4 of the memorandum of settlement, it has been stated that respondent has agreed to close the criminal proceedings against the accused and the divorce has been granted to the settlement and withdrawing all other pending cases against the petitioners herein. In spite of the Settlement between the parties, respondent has not chosen to co-operate with the petitioners for Closing the matter in criminal cases. Therefore, the Petitioners are before this Court.. After hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties especially on perusal of records the memorandum of settlement executed between the parties before the Mediation Center on 26.03.2021, wherein it is clearly mentioned that respondent shall co-operate for closing of the criminal matter. In view of the settlement between the parties, the respondent is not co-operating with the petitioners for closing the proceedings. Once the matter has been settled between the parties and divorce has been granted, Continuing the proceedings in criminal case would amount to abuse of process of law and president presented before the Honorable court regarding the Judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Gani Singh Vs. State Of Punjab &amp; Another reported In 2012, the criminal proceedings shall have to be quashed. After hearing the arguments of both the learned counsels and records and facts presented before the Honorable court , court allowed the petition and criminal proceedings pending before the of chief judicial magistrate against the petitioner has been quashed. Click here to read the judgement Judgement Reviewed by Sugam Anand Mishra