Karnataka High Court
Dr Chandrashekar B G vs State Of Karnataka on 22 June, 2023
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:21697
CRL.P No. 523 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 523 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. DR. CHANDRASHEKAR B.G.,
S/O B.G. GURUVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
SOMPURA (4) DOBASPET,
NELAMANAGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL.
2. SUBBALAKSHMI,
W/O B.G. GURUVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
3. GURUVAIAH,
S/O LATE B.K. GURUVAIAH,
Digitally signed
by PADMAVATHI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
BK
Location: HIGH ALL ARE R/O SHRAVANI NILAYA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 4TH CROSS, ANDANAPPA LAYOUT,
SOMPURA HOBLI, DOBASPET,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL - 562 111.
4. UMA W/O PUTTARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O SHRAVANI NILAYA,
4TH CROSS, ANDANAPPA LAYOUT,
SOUMPURA HOBLI, DOBASPET,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:21697
CRL.P No. 523 of 2023
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL - 562 111.
5. SRUTHI (DECEASED),
D/O B.G. GURUVAIAH.
6. VARSHITH C.,
S/O PUTTARAJU S.,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT SHRAVANI NILAYA,
4TH CROSS, ANDANAPPA LAYOUT,
SOUMPURA HOBLI, DOBASPET,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL - 562 111.
7. GURUPRASAD,
S/O KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT NO.57, BASAVENAHALLI,
MARRIKUPPE,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA - 562 127.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B.R. DEEPAK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DABASPET
POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE - 562 111.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:21697
CRL.P No. 523 of 2023
2. Dr.PAVITHRA L.,
W/O CHANDRASHEKAR,
BEEERESHWARA NILAY,
NEAR CHINMAYA SCHOOL,
P.C., BADAVANE,
KOLAR-563 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. VIVEKANANDA S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE
CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE IN
C.C.NO.2377/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.498-A R/W
SEC.149 OF IPC R/W SEC.3,4 OF DP ACT 1961 WHICH IS
PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
NELAMANGALA BENGALURU RURAL AND TO EXONERATE THE
PETITIONER FROM THE ABOVE CASE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR REPORTING
SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:21697
CRL.P No. 523 of 2023
ORDER
The petition calls in question the proceedings in
C.C.No.2377/2020, registered for offences punishable
under Sections 498A read with Section 149 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The parties were also before the Family Court in
M.C.No.24/2019. The parties to the lis have settled the
dispute amongst themselves and have drawn up certain
conditions of settlement. The closure of these proceedings
reads as follows:
"The petitioner has filed the petition under
Section 13(i)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act seeking
Decree of Divorce to dissolve the marriage
solemnized with respondent on 12.05.2017.
After service of notice the respondent appeared
through his advocate and accordingly, case was
referred to mediation wherein both parties have
agreed to dissolve the marriage and have filed
memorandum of agreement dated 07.02.2023
signed by both parties and their advocates and also
by mediator wherein they have agreed to end their
relationship by decree of divorce and also they have
NC: 2023:KHC:21697
CRL.P No. 523 of 2023
agreed that they do not have any claim of
maintenance or alimony towards each other.
Further as per judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka
High court in WP No. 18848/2016 (GM-FC)
between Aravind Kumar V/s. Smt. Shital
Verma, wherein, it is held:
"9. In the present facts, when the
Memorandum has been entered into in the
Mediation and when the petition is taken up
before this Court, both the parties stand by
the agreement, there is no reason to
discard such agreement though it is entered
into a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and
(ib) and the consideration for dissolution of
marriage is being made by the agreement
of the parties. At best the Court can look
into the terms agreed in the settlement to
take note as to whether any of the terms is
illegal, unconscionable or opposed to public
policy. If that test is satisfied and the
parties confirm the terms of settlement, the
same is required to be accepted and the
proceedings be terminated in terms of the
settlement".
and as per the above ratio in this case
also the petitioner and respondent have
NC: 2023:KHC:21697
CRL.P No. 523 of 2023
agreed to dissolve their marriage by decree
of divorce before mediator and also both
have agreed that they do not have any
claim against each other and the same is
signed by both parties and their respective
advocates and in view of same. I proceed
to pass the following;
ORDER
The memorandum of settlement dated
07.02.2023 is hereby accepted.
Office is directed to draw Decree accordingly
and report of Mediator shall be part and parcel of
Decree.
No order as to costs."
3. In the light of the settlement arrived at between
the parties and the offences being punishable under
Section 498A of IPC and that of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 not being against the State, I deem it appropriate to
accept the settlement and terminate the proceedings
against the petitioners.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, the criminal petition
is disposed. The proceedings in C.C.No.2377/2020 on the
NC: 2023:KHC:21697
CRL.P No. 523 of 2023
file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala stand
quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMJ
