IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2015
BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7720/2015
AGED ABOUT YEARS
S/O SEETHARAM SHARMA
R/AT NO.56, S.G.R.DENTAL COLLEGE ROAD, MUNNEKOLALA,
BENGALURU – 560 037. …PETITIONER
(BY SRI BALASUBRAMANYA FOR SRI PRABHUGOUDAR B. TUMBIGI, ADV.)
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY H.A.L. POLICE STATION BENGALURU
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
W/O KAPIL SHARMA
R/AT NO.56, S.G.R. DENTAL COLLEGE ROAD, MUNNEKOLALA,
BENGALURU – 560 037. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP. FOR R1; SMT.HAJARANBI A.K., ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHO IS THE ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.51187/2013 REGISTERED BY THE H.A.L. POLICE, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFEENCES P/U/S 498(A) OF I.P.C. AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Learned H.C.G.P. is directed to take notice for respondent No.1.
Smt.Hajaranbi, learned Counsel files Power for second respondent.
The petitioner is charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the complaint of second respondent herein.
2. Today, petitioner, second respondent and their respective learned Counsel are present before the Court. Second respondent files an affidavit, which reads thus:
“I, Chetana Sharma, W/o Kapil Sharma, Aged about 24 years, R/at No.D-90, Sector-49, Noida, Paragan & Tahsil:Dadari, District:Goutham Budda Nagar, today at Bangalore do hereby solemnly affirms and oath as follows:
1. I am the 2nd respondent in the above case and I know the facts of the case, hence I am swearing this affidavit.
2. I submit that, due to differences I have filed the complaint before the 1st respondent police against the petitioner and subsequently we were solved our disputes with the advise of the well wishers, family members and friends without any cohesion, undue influence of anybody, hence I have no grievance against the petitioner.
3. I submit that, in view of settlement between me and the petitioner I have no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.51187/2013 registered by the HAL Police, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under section 498A of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the file of the X Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate Bangalore.
I, the deponent Chetana Sharma, do hereby state that what stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief”.
3. It is the submission at the Bar that, a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, for divorce by mutual consent before the Court at Surajpur at Noida, Uttar Pradesh, is filed by the parties.
4. The second respondent submits that, she has agreed to receive totally Rs.19 lakhs towards all her claims from the petitioner and towards part payment, she has already received Rs.5 lakhs and the rest will be paid to her on the hearing date i.e., 27th January 2016 before the Family Court at Noida.
5. Since the entire criminal proceeding is the culmination of matrimonial discord between the estranged couple, in view of the subsequent development and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Gian Singh -vs- State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, there is no impediment to quash the criminal proceedings.
Petition is allowed.
The criminal proceeding against the petitioner in C.C.No.51187/2013 pending on the file of X Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore City, is quashed.