Gokul Ram vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3555 Kant

                            1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

                         BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

       CRIMINAL PETITION No.6674 OF 2020

BETWEEN

1.   Gokul Ram,
     S/o K.Mohan,
     Aged about 35 years,

2.   K.Mohan,
     S/o Late Krishnamurthy,
     Aged about 59 years,

3.   Smt. Vijaya,
     W/o K.Mohan,
     Aged about 55 years,

     1 to 3 are residing at
     No.37, 3rd Main, 10th Cross,
     Dasappa Layout,
     Ramamurthy Nagara,
     Bengaluru-560036.

4.   Smt. Anuradha,
     W/o Manjunath
     Aged about 31 years,
     R/at No.6/2, Muthuswamy Nivas,
     3rd Main, 3rd Cross,
     K.R.Puram New Extension,
     Bengaluru-560036.
                                        ...Petitioners
(By Sri Mari Gowda, Advocate)
                             2



AND

1.    State of Karnataka
      By Ramamurthynagara Police Station,
      Representd by State Pubic Prosecutor,
      High Court of Karnataka,
      Bengaluru-560001.

2.    Smt. Divya M.,
      D/o Late N.Murthy,
      Aged about 30 years,
      R/at No.47A, 1st Main Road,
      1st Cross, Preethinagar,
      Laggere, Bengaluru-560058.
                                              ...Respondents
(By Sri K.S.Abhijith, HCGP for R1;
 R2-served, unrepresented)

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C praying to quashing the criminal proceedings in
CR.No.667/2016 (C.C.No.60981/2017) compounding the
offences initiated under Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and
Sections 506, 34, 498A of IPC by the respondent No.1,
which is pending before the X A.C.M.M., Mayo Hall,
Bengaluru.

       This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this
day, the court made the following:


                         ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

the Government Pleader. Second respondent has

been served with notice, but she has not appeared.

2. The petitioners have sought quashing of the

proceedings in C.C.60981/2017 on the file of X

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall,

Bengaluru. The facts are that the marriage of the

second respondent was solemnized with petitioner

No.1 on 9.2.2014 and thereafter because of the

differences between them, the second respondent

lodged an FIR with the police in Crime No. 667/2016

for the offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act and sections 498A and 506 of IPC read

with section 34 of IPC. Thereafter, the second

respondent approached the Family Court seeking

dissolution of the marriage with the first petitioner by

filing M.C.2711/2017. During the pendency of the

divorce proceedings, the parties were referred to

mediation. In the mediation, the parties agreed for

dissolution of their marriage. The second respondent

further agreed to withdraw the complaint made by her

with the police against the petitioners. Consequent to

the settlement arrived at the Mediation Centre, the

marriage between the first petitioner and the second

respondent was dissolved by judgment dated

18.12.2019 passed by the Family Court in

M.C.2711/2017. But, the allegation now is that the

second respondent did not come forward to close the

criminal case as agreed by her in the Mediation

Centre. Therefore, the petitioner has sought quashing

of the proceedings in the criminal case.

3. Having regard to the fact that the marriage

between the first petitioner and the second

respondent has been dissolved and that the second

respondent agreed for closing the criminal case, if she

did not take further steps, it is a good ground for the

petitioners to seek quashing of the proceedings. The

criminal case was registered consequent to the

matrimonial dispute. Now that the dispute between

the first petitioner and the second respondent has

been dissolved and ended in divorce, if the petitioners

are asked to face trial in connection with the criminal

case, it is nothing but abuse of the process of court

and law. Therefore this petition is allowed.

Proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.60981/2017

on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru, are quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ckl