Mahadevi W/O. Basavanneppa ... vs Vittal S/O. Hanamantappa Dandin
2022 Latest Caselaw 103 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

         WRIT PETITION NO.101763/2021 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN

SMT MAHADEVI W/O. BASAVANNEPPA SATANNAVAR,
AGE 50 YEARS, OCC-HOUSE WIFE,
R/O HEBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST DHARWAD-580 112.

                                        ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE)

AND :

SHRI VITTAL S/O. HANAMANTAPPA DANDIN,
AGE 49 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS,
R/O SHINGANAHALLI,
TQ. AND DIST- DHARWAD-581 204.
                                   ... RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED)

    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. AND PRAYED TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED IN C.C.NO.29/2018 BY THE HON'BLE II
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-II, DHARWAD VIDE
ORDER DATED 31.12.2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND
CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE AND RE-OPEN THE CASE
AGAINST THE RESPONDENT AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER
                             2




TO CONTEST THE CASE ON MERITS AND DISPOSE OF THE
CASE AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                    ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the issue in the subject writ petition stands completely

covered by the Judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this

Court rendered in Writ Petition No.23520/2018(GM-RES)

dated 07.02.2020.

2. A perusal of the said Judgment would clearly

indicate that the issues are similar and the findings

rendered in the said Judgment stands covered on all its

fours to the issues at hand. Therefore following the said

judgment, subject writ petition is allowed in the same

terms as is directed by this Court in the Writ Petition

No.23520/2018.

3. The terms as ordered in the Writ Petition

No.23520/2018 are as follows :

"In view of the above discussion the questions raised are answered as under :

Depending on the terms of a compromise arrived at before the Lok-Adalat it can be enforced as a Civil decree or in terms of the applicable provisions of Cr.P.C ., including that under Section 431 of Cr.P.C. if so provided in the compromise.

In the event of a default of a compromise arrived at before the Lok-Adalat this Court or the Trial Court can on an application made by the Complainant set-aside the compromise arrived at before the Lok- Adalat, restore the complaint on its file and proceed with the complaint or enforce the compromise as per the terms of the compromise including by issuance of an FLW under Section 431 of the Cr.P.C.

In view of the above, the order dated 7.6.2014 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagepalli in C.C.No.578/2013 is set-aside, and C.C.No.578/2013 is restored to file. The Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagepalli is directed to consider the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 431 of Cr.P.C., afresh after issuing notice to the accused-respondent

within period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order."

*4. In the light of the aforesaid order, the order

dated 31.12.2020 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge

and JMFC-II, Dharwad in Criminal Case No.29/2018 is set

aside and Criminal Case No.29/2018 is restored to file.

*5. The II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-II,

Dharwad is directed to consider the petition filed by the

petitioner-wife under Section 431 of Cr.P.C. afresh after

issuing a notice to the respondent-accused and dispose

the same within a period of six months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE CKK

* Inserted vide Court order Dated 13.01.2022.

Sd/-

(MNPJ)