Sunday, May 25, 2014

If you pay moolah, court with quash EVEN a non cocgnizable charge sheet !! then why police why inquiry why charge sheet why law ? straight away do panchayt no ?

If you pay moolah, court with quash EVEN a non cocgnizable charge sheet !! then why police why inquiry why charge sheet why law ? straight away do panchayt no ? Story of how a man was milked rs 600000 in broad day light !!


************************

Karnataka High Court

Rajashekar vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 April, 2014

Author: S.N.Satyanarayana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2014 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2155/2014

BETWEEN :

1. RAJASHEKAR S/O D MARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC:PRIVATE SERVICE,

2. SMT JAYAMMA W/O D MARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,

3. D MARAPPA S/O DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC:LIC AGENT,

4. SMT UMA W/O RAMANJANEYA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,

5. RAMANJANEYA S/O LATE MURUDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC:PHOTOGRAPHER,
ALL ARE R/O NO.941, 17TH CROSS,
OPP:WATER TANK, K S LAYOUT,
BANGALORE CITY,
KARNATAKA STATE-560033 ... PETITIONERS (By SRI: RAVINDRA B DESHPANDE, ADV)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY-560004.

2. SMT SWETHA W/O RAJASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/A NO.69, MUDDAPPA CROSS,
JAI BHARATHNAGAR,
OPPOSITE RAGHAVENDRA TEMPLE,
BASAVANAGUDI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560033. ... RESPONDENTS

(By SRI : B.J.ESWARAPPA, HCGP ROR R1 SRI.CHARAN KUMAR B V., ADV FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CRIME NO.49/13 OF BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN P.S., BANGALORE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE CITY. THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Accused No.1 to 5 in Crime No.49/2013 registered with Basavanagudi Women Police for offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, have come up in this petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid criminal proceeding, which is now registered in CC.NO.4700/2014 on the file of II ACMM, Bangalore.

2. Admittedly, the proceeding in Crime No.49/2013 is registered at the instance of second respondent-complainant. It is stated that subsequently, after the investigation, charge sheet is filed by the police and criminal complaint is registered in CC.No.4700/2014 on the file of II ACMM, Bangalore. When the matter stood thus, a petition which was filed by the husband- first petitioner seeking decree of dissolution of his marriage with second respondent in MC.No.231/2012 was referred to mediation, wherein the dispute between the parties is settled in first petitioner agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to second respondent towards her past, present and future maintenance. The second respondent having accepted the same, has agreed for a decree of divorce in dissolving her marriage with first petitioner. While doing so, she has accepted and undertaken to withdraw all the allegations that she has made against her husband and other family members with reference to the offence alleged under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/

3. It is further stated that out of Rs.6,00,000/- permanent alimony that was agreed, Rs.4,00,000/- is already paid and in addition to that, the interim maintenance which was granted amounting to Rs.20,000/- is also paid. Now what is required to be paid is a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- out of Rs.6,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and Rs.10,000/- towards the balance interim maintenance before the family court, where the matrimonial case in MC.No.231/2012 is pending and which will be withdrawn after payment of said amount. The second respondent, who is present before the Court has joined the petitioners in presenting the application under Section 482 of Cr.PC seeking quashing of the aforesaid criminal proceeding, which is initiated at her instance. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/

4. In this proceeding, though the settlement is arrived at between the parties, the offences alleged being non compoundable in nature, the application which is filed by the parties this day seeking quashing of the aforesaid criminal proceeding cannot be entertained. However, in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Gian Singh -vs- State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, it is observed that whenever a settlement is arrived at between the parties with reference to the offences alleged, which are in the nature of financial dispute or matrimonial dispute, considering the fact that settlement is arrived at, the High Courts and Supreme Court can consider quashing of the proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.PC. In view of the said judgment of Apex Court, considering the fact that the dispute between the parties being settled resulting in dissolution of the marriage between the first petitioner and second respondent, this Court would accept their settlement. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/

5. Accordingly, the application filed by the parties under Section 482 of Cr.PC is taken on record. The proceeding initiated in Crime No.49/2013 presently registered as CC.No.7400/2014 and pending on the file of II ACMM, Bangalore, is hereby quashed by allowing this criminal petition. Sd/-

JUDGE

nd/-


*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
 
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************


*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist