w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Shaji George Thomas v/s State by Koramangala PS & Another

    Criminal Petition No. 5419 of 2014

    Decided On, 08 December 2014

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA

    For the Petitioner: Siji Malayil, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, Y.D. Harsha, AGA, R2, C.R. Prathima for K.S. Nandish Babu, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Crl.P is filed U/S.482 Cr.P.C. praying to accept the above petition and pass appropriate orders quashing the Criminal Proceedings in C.C.No.13519/2014 arising out of crime No.125/2013 for non-compounding the offences and other offences punishable under provisions of section 498A of IPC, U/s 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act initiated by the respondent No.1, whi

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ch is pending on the file of the VIII ACMM, Bangalore.)

1. Sri.K.S. Nandish Babu, learned Advocate has entered appearance for respondent no.2. The petitioner and respondent no.2 are present before the Court and they are identified by their learned advocates.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner and respondent no.2 filed a joint memo and submitted that, in view of the amicable settlement arrived at by the parties, they may be permitted to compound the offences in respect of which C.C.No.13519/2014 was registered and process was issued by the learned 08th A.C.M.M., Bangalore to the petitioner.

3. The marriage of the petitioner and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 29.08.2007. A male child was born on 25.09.2009. There was estrangement, which led to the filing of M.C.No.1265/2013 by respondent no.2 against the petitioner in the Court of the 4th Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. She having filed a complaint on 16.03.2013 alleging commission of offences under Section 498(A) of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, respondent no.1 registered a case in Cr.No.125/2013. After investigation, final report having been submitted, the learned 8th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore took cognizance and ordered registration of C.C.No.13519/2014 against the petitioner. Assailing the said proceedings, this petition was filed on 01.09.2014.

4. Petitioner and respondent no.2 having been referred to mediation in M.C.No.1265/2013, have arrived at an amicable settlement, which is evidenced by a memorandum of agreement under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005.

5. By referring to the said agreement, learned counsel on both sides submitted that M.C.No.1265/2013 was allowed and decree of divorce was passed by the 4th Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore.

6. Keeping in view the events which have taken place after solemnization of marriage on 29.08.2007 and since C.C.No.13519/2014 was registered on account of matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and respondent no.2 and the parties having arrived at an amicable settlement in the Family Court, the joint memo filed by the learned advocates appearing for the parties can be taken on record and the parties can be permitted to compound the offence, more particularly, on account of the ratio of the decision in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and another, (2013) 4 SCC 58.

7. Respondent no.2, when questioned, submitted that she is not under pressure to withdraw the complaint filed against the petitioner, which led to the registration of C.C.No.13519/2014.

8. I am satisfied that the parties have amicably settled the matrimonial disputes. Continuation of the C.c.No.13519/2014 would cause un-necessary hardship to the parties. By holding a trial, no useful purpose would be served as the original complainant, in view of the joint memo filed is not likely to support the prosecution case.

In the result, joint memo is placed on record and the petition is allowed. As a consequence, C.C.No.13519/2014 on the file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore is quashed.
O R