KN
THE HC)N'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA«,,':C§O&?\u[DT:u\' '
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2om__
BEFORE
CRIMINAL PETITION |\vl.O:6».--"ES7/Zéiivéf.-VI, V
BETWEEN:
1
4; 'SAINSALORE 72.
1
ABHAY VALVEKAR
S/O. ASHOK \/ALVEKAR
AGED 26 YEARS.
ASHOK vAL.vEKAR"'--.7 __ 3
S/O.T VALVEKAR I A
AGED 55 YEARS. .
SMT ARC}fA;§:A',A vwAL\}',Ek.AR,." 3
vvv/0,, KI :I,(A,Ev.E'RAVR '' ' '-
AGED 49{Y_EAP;S, _ I
A£;--'_- ARE R/AT"Y,'ifI~O'E.'5,. _1:RU,A<;YrINI NILAY/-\
2"" MAIN. TEACHERS'jCOLO:\IY
NAGAF<A,Es+~:AvjI CIRC'I:E
PETITIONERS
'(BY"SRI~C'RRAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
SMT R'RA<3ATHI B
'W,/'O. ABHAY WALVEKAR
" AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
j:R/AT.NO.573,
" 90TH CROSS, K S LAYOUT,
BANGALORE.
IN.)
2 STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
POLICE STATION.
RESPO.NDENTS
(BY SR: i\i.S.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P Is FILED U/8.482 CR.P.C BY THE' AD_\/OC"ATE* 4_
FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS _H.Ov_N~*ELE.."COURT' ., "
MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE __FI.P.__Ii\: CR.NO'.4Vi6/1.Q'TVOT:
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT P.S., BANGALORE CITY DATEEJ.jlTQ.9'._1_DA'
AND COMPLAINT PENDING ON THE":FI;'E*~OF"TH'E_ \.eA»CM.M~.?,,
BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION COMING 'Qi\E<.TFORV.O«RDE.RS, DAY, V
THE COURT MADE THE T=OLLOYvINC1::._ .
1*" petitioner married ting~~'T...iS*:§;_réSpondent on
21.06.2009. the parents of
the 1%..pe't'it.i.oir;er.aJKan"aecountdofv"incompatibility between
the 15".petitioneri"'irahwndflt-h:e...~ 15' respondent, differences
having arisen, the ‘v1Sf’–.res~pVondent filed a Complaint before
~'”~._the._’:_j.”§7’d3_Irespond’e’r’ivt~,——«which was registered by the 2″”
«Crime No.416/2010 and an FIR was
the 5″‘ Addi.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
‘;_Court, ~E3a’T;~gaiore. The Case was registered for the Offences
A Sections 498»-A, S09 IPC and Sections 3 8: 4 of
E2:
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The 2″” respondent has not
yet filed the charge sheet.
2. The 1″ petitioner has fiied M.c.i\ieii.:’2i6ai9;fa2_ot.of’_
in the Family Court, Bangalore, seeking disS’oititvion:o’f,th.e
marriage between herself and the,15§”‘retspon_d’ent. ‘F’etiti’o.n:
having been referred to the”V_B-angaiore’ MedE,a’tio’n-.,Ce.ntre,wt”
the parties have arrived at a s_e’tt.Jement…’Aimemforandum
of agreement under Se’-ct”i’on been drawn on
23.12.2010, the petiti’o–nhe:i’, i”e$p,o}1d’ent and their
learned adVQ.Céit@«,駒i’i’h_av.e’ Copy of the said
agreement A?i.r1exu.re–/2010 registered by the 2″” respondent and
to thVe”5″””Addi.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
V’ gCouTrt,_ Ba,hig.aii Q re,
N.Suresh Kumar, advocate, has entered
R””‘–..V:”appear.a’nee on behalf of the 1″ respondent. The
_dpet–i»ti.oiners and the 1″ respondent submitted a joint memo,
it wherein, it has been stated that, they have decideig to put
X’
an end to the matters by obtaining divorce and the 15′
respondent has stated that, she does not wish to co’nt.i,nue
the case in Crime No.416/2010. The memo has..aiAs’o__’
signed by the iearned advocates appeayrir-tg’..A_for’
petitioners and the 1″ respondent.
5. The 15′ respondentais a Master De’g..ree,_ho3ider.,i*
She is present before the cot.i”rt,::a!.ong her} mother.
The 13′ respondent submitteed tjha’t’,’~e.tihe’r’e_ is settiement of
dispute between._herse|.i?. the=..pe.ti’tione’r’s and that, she
has ehteI~§d?,_.:V an 1:at;re,eme’nt:'”dated 23.12.2010
(Annexidre~~C)”.j;’ sd’bI’i1its that, she has received
an offe”r_o’f’,_appoinntmentasj’Project Officer from the Centre
for Environment:Edti~cati–o’n, Ahmedabad -~ 380 054 and
“”~._,_wo._t{|’3d !.eaving’VB-angalore on 02.01.2011 to report for
A copy of the offer of appointment
dated was placed on record.
The petitioners and the 1″ respondent
ii*C§”,st.ii;tij_stted that, the joint memo dated 30.12.2010 be
received on record and proceedings in Crime Nq\.416/2010
ti:
registered by the Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station,
pending on the fiie of 5″‘ Addi.Chief Met’ro.,i§’oilrt.an
Magistrate Court, Bangalore, be quashed.
7. From the above narrated-fa,cts_,, itis’ciear–.t’halt,
the petitioners and the 15′ respondenitihavel’ente.re«d
compromise and the 15′ res-pro~n,dent’ has–.,,u”nderta’ke’n to”
withdraw ali proceedings fiieyd-“and’–in”i-ti_ated’byv her against
the petitioners, which inVc_iud’e.s.i1’ti?’xe_:ca.seLiegistered at her
instance by t.h,e:A”Z2f’d r;espon.de.nt«~:,lu–rider’:Eiections 498-A &
of Dowry Prohibition
509 of IPC§ Vuin-d”er’
Act, 19’6’1′.«.:Tijie.;agtee’rne-nt’h’avinVo been reached at the
Bangalore’ has been submitted to the
Famiiy caurrti; – Vi X
«The co’rri’plaint was registered at the instance of
“1,5′:::”r.esp’osn:dent due to temperamental differences and
irnpiied Virnputations. Subsequently, a divorce petition was
lqfiled a’n,d’i~the parties reached an amicable settlement at the
“‘:”_’:”}a,n.-galore Mediation Centre. In the circumstances, there
would almost be no chance of conviction.
9. In the case of B.S.JOSHI & OTHERS VS. STATE
OF HARYANA & ANOTHER, reported in 2003 Crl,L.J 2_Q28, it
has been held that, the object of introducing Chapjterf”XX–.A
containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal_.,4C’ode«,:’wia’5
prevent the torture to a woman.;»iay..,her’_4′ by it
relatives of her husband. Section’i449:8AA”lwals«added
view to punishing the husb_an..d and.__hisu:rv=elativ’es”jwho”l
harass or torture the wife to V,co–erce”h.e.r i’h~e.r,. relatives to
satisfy unlawful demanldslof h;a’s.,been held that,
a hyper–technicai productive and
would act and against the
object:’:for-.w’h.ic’nthepr’o.v’isio’n”was added. It was further
observed likelihood that non–e><ercIse
of injhlerent ponwervvto Aguash the proceedings to meet the
Lends ofl'ju.stic'e,wou|d prevent women from settling down.
"10v,."i:l{eleping in view the said declaration of law by
Ap"ex°iCourt and the fact that the 1" respondent, who is
..,l_"'wF.-1':|,i_"educated, has decided to put an end to the matters
between herself and the petitioners and also the fact that,
_,.-v''''''''''''''
Q.
3/1
she is intending to report for duty at Ahmedabad and
settle down there itseif, in my opinion, it is exped~i.e:nti’and
in the interest of justice to accept the joint “Vfi’Ij’e~d
the parties and quash the _case_ 4
1 SE.’ ”
respondent at the instance of the ?.’_'”‘j~”respondenL:§,,..,,Tii1.e
settlement between the petitioner 1*?’
respondent, as regard th,e.i.r:’~.matrimonial_ ‘dispute is
concerned being genu’i’ne,an’d__ ,i_r1 the interest of
the 15’ respondent, who~h’as.”decide.ditoiisettle down by
reporting memo filed in
the pet.iti.Qn'”‘is’_”accepted; ; ”
In the result, V-‘ailowed and the case
registered b),Lthe resipoindenst in Crime 530.416/2010
andftl”‘i’e AFief’stieebm’eitted sine 5″‘ Add|.Chief Metropoiitan
. Magistrate_,C0:i:r”t,LBa’r:,gvaiore, is hereby quashed.
Sdj’-
§UEGE