Karnataka High Court
Padmanabha vs State By Rajajinagar Ps on 4 January, 2022
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1848/2020
BETWEEN
1 . PADMANABHA
S/O LAKSHMAN
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
2 . SMT. YASHODAMMA
W/O LAKSHMAN
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
3 . LAKSHMAN
S/O LAE KENGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO. 862,
6TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN
NEAR MUDALIAR CHOULTRY
PRAKASHNAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 021
4 . SMT. SANDHYA L
W/O SUMAN
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS
PRAKASHNAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 021
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)
2
AND
1 . STATE BY RAJAJINAGAR PS
BENGALURU - 560 010
REP BY SPP
2 . SMT. R SHILPA
PADMANABHA D/O. RAMALINGA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT 513, 4TH MAIN,
KAMALANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 079
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1
SRI RAGHAVENDRA H.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VIDEO
CONFERENCE))
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL DATED 13.12.2019 OF THE
I.A. UNDER SECTION 239 OF CR.PC IN C.C.NO.19729/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE IX A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU VIDE
ANNEXURE-A
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner Nos.1 to 4
under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing criminal
proceedings pending on the file of IX ACMM Court,
Bangalore in CC No.19729/2016 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 354 and 506 R/w 34 of
Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for
the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the
complaint of respondent No.2-wife of petitioner No.1,
police have registered a case in Crime No.23/2016.
Wherein respondent No.2 after marrying petitioner No.1,
he has started harassing her physically and mentally and
demanded additional dowry. After registering the case
charge sheet also filed by police and petitioner No.1 said to
have filed a matrimonial case for restitution of conjugal
rights in M.C.No.5399/2015. The respondent No.2 also
filed M.C.No.664/2016 before the Family Court, Bengaluru
for decree of divorce and the respondent No.2 also filed
Criminal Miscellaneous case in Crl.Misc.No.49/2016 before
the Magistrate under Section 89 of CPC read with Section
24 and 25 of Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules,
2005 before the Magistrate Traffic Court-V, Bengaluru,
where the matter was referred to Lok-Adalath and both the
parties arrived at settlement on 30.10.2017 and the
parties had withdrawn both the Matrimonial Cases with the
condition that the Defacto Complainant should withdraw
the criminal case filed against the present petitioner and
close the proceedings. After the settlement, the parties
said to have not executed order of settlement. Though
both the MC cases were withdrawn, Domestic Violence Act
were also withdrawn but the counter cases are pending.
Hence, petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended
that both parties arrived at settlement in Lokadalath is
binding on the parties and it is executable decree. The
respondent should have execute Lok-Adalath award, the
petitioner has not complied the settlement. Therefore,
prayed for quashing the same.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP submits it is executable
decree, once it is settled before the Lok-Adalath. The
counsel for respondent No.2 submits though the
settlement arrived between parties but the petitioner has
not complied Lok-Adalath settlement as he has not taken
the house and called her to live together, therefore they
are living separately. The respondent No.2 living in her
parents house. Hence prayed for dismissal.
6. It is well settled that once the matter is settled
before the Lok-adalath it is binding on parties and the
decree is executable before the appropriate court of law.
The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the
Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 2005 (1)
SBR 525 in case of Mohd.Shamim and Ors Vs. Nahid
Begum and Anr also in another case , this court also had
passed similar judgment reported in Crl.P.No.3157/2020
betweem Ms. Shally M. Peter Vs M/s. Banyan Projects
India Pvt. Ltd.
7. Once the parties have arrived at settlement
before Lok-adalath and award has been passed which is an
executable decree, therefore, if at all any default in
complying the terms of settlement, the parties are
required to appear before the appropriate court for the
execution of the settlement award. Such being the case,
continuing the criminal proceeding is nothing but the abuse
of process of law.
8. However, learned counsel for respondent submits
that the petitioners not complied by taking respondent
No.2 to his house. The submission is taken on record.
9. If at all petitioner not complied the award of
settlement it is the respondent to choose and file petition
for quashing or set aside of the said settlement award by
filing writ petition. But till today respondent not chosen to
file any such writ petition. Such being the case, continuing
the criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of
law. Hence, same should be quashed in terms of
settlement arrived at between both the parties. Hence,
pass the following;
Criminal Petition is allowed.
Criminal proceeding in CC.No.19729/2016 pending
on the file of IX ACMM Court, Bangalore in Crime
NO.23/2016 registered by Rajajinagar Police, is hereby
quashed.
In view of disposal of the main petition, pending
I.A.No.1/2020 does not survive for consideration and the
same is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AKV
