Notes
*****************
* every other failed marriage, every other divorce petition is now becomming a dowry case*****************
***********************************************************************************
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
CRL.P.No.1236/2014
BETWEEN
1. SMT .KRISHNA KUMARI YARLAGADDA,
W/O RAM MANOHAR LOHIA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
2. GAUTHAM PALLADUGU,
S/O RAM MANOHAR LOHIA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
PETITIONER Nos.1 AND 2 ARE
R/AT HOUSE NO.8-3-224/3/A/F-8
YOUSUF GUDA, MADHURA NAGAR
KHAIRATABAD,
HYDERABAD-500018.
3. YARLAGADA KUTUMBA RAO,
S/O GOVARDHAN,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
4. SMT. RAJINI,
W/O YARLAGADA KUTUMBA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
PETITIONERS 3 AND 4 ARE
R/AT PEDAVUTAPALLI,
UNGUTURU MANDAL,
KRISHNA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-521286. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHARATH GOWDA G.B, ADV.,)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY RAMAMURTHYNAGAR
POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE-560001,
REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. BHANUPRIYA TUMMALA,
W/O GAUTHAM PALLADUGU,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 668,
BHUVANESHWARI LAYOUT,
7TH CROSS,
RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD,
MUNEKOLALA,
BANGALORE-560037. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI L.M.PANDURANGASWAMY, ADV., FOR R2
SRI B.J.ESWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR. No.328/2012 ON THE FILE OF 10TH A.C.M.M., BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETR. HEREIN.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.328/2012 registered by Ramamurthynagar Police Station, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 420 read with Section 34 IPC., as also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, coming within the jurisdiction of X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bangalore, have come up in this petition seeking to quash the FIR filed in the said Crime. in Crime No.328/2012 and the complainant - 2nd respondent herein are present before the Court. It is stated that subsequent to filing of complaint, dispute between the parties is amicably resolved and a joint petition is filed by 2nd petitioner herein - husband and 2nd respondent herein - wife in O.P. No.507/2013, which is filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, seeking for decree of divorce and while doing so, it was assured by 2nd respondent herein that she would withdraw all the allegations in the complaint filed by her before Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station in Crime No.328/2012, even before petition pending for decree for divorce is finalized.
3. In that behalf, an affidavit is filed by 2nd respondent herein dated 18.03.2014 and sworn to before a Notary at Bangalore, wherein she has unconditionally withdrawn all the allegations made against accused Nos.1 to 4 in the aforesaid Crime No.38/2012 registered by 1st respondent herein. She has also stated that the marriage between herself and 2nd petitioner herein, Sri Gautham Palladugu, is irretrievably broken and as such, joint petition is filed by them for decree of divorce by mutual consent and in the said proceeding, 2nd petitioner has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.25,00,000/- i.e., `.8,00,000/- towards her permanent alimony and `.17,00,000/- towards maintenance of minor child, Chi. Sathvik, who is born in the wedlock between herself and 2nd petitioner herein. It is further stated that 2nd petitioner has paid her `.5,00,000/- towards portion of permanent alimony payable to her at the time of filing of O.P. No.507/2013 and the balance amount of `.3,00,000/- is agreed to be paid to her on the date of pronouncement of judgment in O.P. No.507/2013. It is further stated that so far as the maintenance amount of `.17,00,000/- payable to minor child is concerned, 2nd petitioner has agreed to pay `.8,50,000/- on the date of withdrawal of allegations made by 2nd respondent herein in Crime No.328/2012 and the remaining amount of `.8,50,000/- is agreed to be paid on the date of pronouncement of judgment in O.P. No.507/2013. The affidavit filed by 2nd respondent herein is taken on record. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
4. Though the said settlement is arrived at between the parties, in ordinary circumstances, the offences alleged by 2nd petitioner herein against petitioners herein, cannot be compounded since the said offences are non-compoundable in nature. However, the Apex Court in the matter of GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ((2012) 10 SCC 303), while discussing the fact situation in the said proceedings, has held that in the circumstances, where the dispute between the parties is not with reference to committing of heinous offences like rape, murder, dacoity etc., and if it involves offences relating to financial matters and matrimonial disputes, though the same are not compoundable, it is well within the discretion of the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the said proceedings taking into consideration the settlement arrived at between the parties to enable them to live peacefully. In the light of the ratio rendered by the Apex Court, the settlement arrived at between the parties is taken note of in the present case and this Court feel that this is a fit case for quashing of the proceedings in question.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. Taking into consideration the affidavit of the complainant - 2nd respondent herein, proceedings initiated by her in Crime No.328/2012 on 07.09.2012 against petitioners 1 to 4 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 420 read with Section 34 IPC., and also Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before 1st respondent - Ramamurthynagar Police Station, Bangalore, pending consideration before X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE
sma
*****************************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 or High court websites. 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 movement. SIF as a concept 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 and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . 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
No comments:
Post a Comment