Mahendra vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 1348 Kant

                              1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.7864/2020

BETWEEN:

MAHENDRA
S/O LATE BASAPPA
AGED 29 YEARS
R/O GOWRAMMA BUILDING
S.L.N. ROAD, JIGANI 560 105
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

AND ALSO PERMANENTLY
R/AT NO.91, KUMMACHAHALLI VILLAGE
THAMMADAHALLI
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.                       ... PETITIONER

              (BY SRI. ANAND R.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY JIGANI POLICE STATION
       BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -560 105
       REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
       HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
       BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                    2



2.     SMT.SUNITHA
       W/O MAHENDRA
       AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
       KUMMACHAHALLI VILLAGE
       CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313
       CHAMARAJANAGAR (T)
       CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.                       ... RESPONDENTS

           (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R1
       SRI. R.V. SHIVANANDA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
SPL.C.C.NO.99/2014   (CR.NO.55/2014   OF  JIGANI   P.S.,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC, SECTION 3(1)(X) OF SC/ST ACT
ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND
ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying

this Court to set aside the entire proceedings in

Spl.C.C.No.99/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections

498A of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,

1989 (the 'SCST Act' for short).

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner

and respondent No.2 were fell in love and the same is resulted in

marriage. Thereafter, differences arisen between the parties.

Based on the complaint, a case has been registered against the

petitioner herein at the instance of respondent No.2. Now both

the parties have filed an application under Section 320 of

Cr.P.C., praying this Court to compound the offences which have

been invoked.

3. In support of the application both of them have filed

a separate affidavit. Both the parties in the affidavit have stated

that now they are willing to reside together on the advice of

well-wishers and the elders. For the reasons mentioned in the

respective affidavit and also in view of the Judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of GIAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, held that, if it is a matrimonial

dispute, the Court can permit to compound the offences.

4. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Spl.C.C.No.99/2014, is hereby quashed.

In view of allowing the main petition, I.A, if any, does not

survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cp*