Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28425 (KAR)

MALATHI K C v. BINDU M M

CRL.P/7779/2022 · 2025-01-09

M G Uma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:706 CRL.P No. 7779 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7779 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. MALATHI K.C., W/O PRADEEP S.S., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O HALLI HITTALU, ANURU VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TQ AND DIST - 577 101 2. MEENAKSHMAMMA K.M. @ MEENAKSHI S/O. LATE CHANDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O HALLI HITTALU, ANURU VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DIST - 577 101 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAGADISH BALIGA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BINDU M.M., W/O. POORNESHA K.C., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT: MDUREMANE, MUTTIGEPURA VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST - 577 132 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PSI, MUDIGER P.S. MUDIGERE, CHIKKMAGALURU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:706 CRL.P No. 7779 of 2022 SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY PSI MUDIGERE P.S., AT MUDIGERE CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT IN CR.NO.109/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.498-A, 313, 323, 504, 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF DP ACT AS PER ANNEXURE A AND THE SAME IS PENDING BEFORE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN S.C.NO.10/2020. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioners being accused Nos.2 and 3 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by respondent No.2 in Cr.No.109/2019 of Mudigere police station now pending in SC No.10/2020 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamangaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 313, 323, 504, 506 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Heard Sri.Jagadish Baliga N., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Kethan Kumar, learned counsel for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:706 CRL.P No. 7779 of 2022 respondent No.1 and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP for respondent No.2. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the copy of order dated 20.12.2023 passed in Mics.First Appeal No.7710/2022 before this Court wherein, the divorce petition filed by respondent No.2 and accused No.1 was allowed. Divorce was granted as they were residing separately since more than 3 years. There is no chance of reunion. The order also makes it clear that the parties have entered into settlement as stated in their application. They mutually agreed for divorce. They withdrew allegations made against one - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:706 CRL.P No. 7779 of 2022 another and respondent No.2 herein had agreed to give up her claim for alimony. Paragraph 8 of the order refers SC No.10/2020 i.e., criminal proceedings in question in this petition and that respondent No.2 has agreed to co-operate with accused No.1 for quashing the said criminal proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 agreed to the terms of settlement and also granting of divorce. He submitted that parties are residing separately and that he has no objection to allow the petition. 6. Petitioners being accused Nos.2 and 3, sister-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No.2 are entitled for the benefit of settlement entered into between respondent Nos.2 and accused No.1. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:706 CRL.P No. 7779 of 2022 (ii) The FIR registered against the petitioners in Cr.No.109/2019 of Mudigere police station now pending in SC No.10/2020 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamangaluru, registered the offence punishable under Section 498A, 313, 323, 504, 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH List No.: 4 Sl No.: 19