PRUTHVIRAJ BEDAJARGI & ORS vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 8 for quashing of C.C.No.70/2016 pending on the file of III JMFC, Davangere, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 506 of IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Heard Sri.Bhanu Pradeep, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Udita Ramesh for petitioners and Smt.R.K.Ankalagi, learned counsel appearing for second respondent and Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for first respondent-State. Perused the case papers.

First petitioner and second respondent marriage came to be solemnised on 17.02.2012 at Davangere and on account of incompatiblity and certain irreversible differences having arisen between them, they started living separately from January'' 2014. Second respondent herein filed a complaint on 15.10.2014 before the jurisdictional police alleging that she was being ill-treated and harassed mentally and physically by petitioners with a demand for dowry. Said complaint came to be registered in Cr.No.78/2014 and after investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.70/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Said proceedings are pending on the file of III JMFC, Davangere.

In the meanwhile, first petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage in M.C.No.84/2014 for grant of decree of divorce. Since said petition was filed before the Family Court, Gulbarga, second respondent filed a petition for transfer in C.P.No.308/2014 and this Court transferred the said proceedings to the Family Court, Davangere and in the transfer proceedings matter had been referred to mediation and parties arrived at a settlement as per the terms set-out in the agreement drawn under Section 89 of CPC r/w Rules 24 and 25 of Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005.

In that view of the matter, both parties namely, first petitioner and second respondent have filed a Joint Memo whereunder it is agreed that second respondent has no objection for quashing C.C.No.70/2016 pending before III JMFC, Davangere. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners has also filed a memo today enclosing Demand Draft bearing No.023462 dated 10.08.2017 drawn on Bank of India in favour of Smt. Nagaveni (second respondent).

Second respondent is present before Court and acknowledges receipt of a sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- by way of Demand Draft and states that after compromise petition being filed in M.C.No.84/2014 she would claim further sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- deposited by the first petitioner before this Court by way of Demand Draft for which petitioners have no objection. Her submission is placed on record.

Parties present before Court are identified by their respective learned Advocates and learned Advocates have also filed a memo enclosing photocopies of identity cards of parties issued by statutory authorities and in token of having identified parties, learned Advocates have also affixed their signatures to the Joint Memo as well as memo filed today.

In the light of aforestated facts and dicta laid down by Apex Court in the case of GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of further proceedings in C.C.No.70/2016 would not sub-serve the ends of justice and it would be an abuse of process of law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.70/2016 pending on the file of III JMFC, Davangere, is hereby quashed.

(iii) Petitioners are acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506 of IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(iv) Second respondent would be at liberty to move this Court for handing the Demand Draft immediately after filing an affidavit indicating thereunder filing of compromise petition in M.C.No.84/2017 pending before Family Court, Davanagere as undertaken in settlement arrived between first petitioner and second respondent in M.C.No.84/2014.