Posted On by &filed under High Court, Karnataka High Court.


Karnataka High Court
Gangadhar vs State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2013
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana
                              1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

           DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2013

                           BEFORE
     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. N. KESHAVANARAYANA

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.2593/2013

BETWEEN:

Gangadhar,
S/o. Mayanna,
Aged about 29 years,
Residing at No.95, 1st Main Road,
Farm Road, Sannakki Bylu,
Vrushabhavathinagara,
Kamakshipalya,
Bangalore-560 079,
Native of Mayannagowdanapalya Village,
Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District-572 124.                   ... Petitioner

(By Smt.R.Radha, Advocate)


AND:

1.     State of Karnataka,
       By Kamakshipalya Police Station,
       Bangalore,
       Represented by Public Prosecutor,
       High Court Building,
       Bangalore-560 001.

2.     Smt.Deepu.H.J.,
       Aged about 21 years,
       W/o. Gangadhar,
       D/o. Jagadeesh,
       Handrangi Village,
       Konanur Hobli,
                                2

     Arakalgud Taluk,
     Hassan District-573 125.            ... Respondents

(By Sri.B.Raja Subramanya Bhat, HCGP for R-1)

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.656/2012 in the
Kamakshipalya        Police    Station,     Bangalore     now
C.C.No.3132/2013 file pending before the V Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and all the subsequent
proceedings arising there from in view of compromise arrived
between the parties.

     This Criminal Petition coming for admission on this day,
the Court made the following:

                             ORDER

In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the

petitioner arraigned as accused in C.C. No.3132/2013

pending on the file of the V-Additional C.M.M., Bangalore,

has sought for quashing the prosecution launched against

him for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 376,

506 of IPC.

2) The 2nd respondent is the prosecutrix, on whose

complaint, the 1st Respondent-Police registered the case in

Crime No.656/2012, investigated the matter and filed the

charge sheet.

3

3) During investigation, the petitioner was

arrested. The application filed by him for grant of bail

came to be rejected by the Sessions Court. However, in the

petition, filed by him before this court in Criminal Petition

No.104/2013, when he was brought before this Court

under a body warrant, he submitted that he is in love with

the complainant and he is willing to marry her. The

complainant-Respondent No.2 was also present before this

Court and made a submission that she is willing to marry

him. In the light of that submission, the petitioner was

granted interim bail for a period of 10 days on executing a

bond and he was directed to surrender before the court on

28.03.2013. On 28.03.2013, the petitioner surrendered

before this court. On that day, the 2nd respondent herein

filed a memo with a copy of the Certificate of Registration

of Marriage between her and the petitioner, and the same

was taken on record. In the light of the subsequent

development of the petitioner marrying the 2nd respondent-

complainant, this court by order dated 28.03.2013, granted

bail to the petitioner. Thereafter, on completion of
4

investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. Before this

court, the 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit to the effect

that she had love affair with the petitioner, however, the

parents of the petitioner did not immediately accept for

their marriage, as a result, the petitioner was postponing

the marriage, though she kept on forcing him for their

marriage immediately. She has further stated in her

affidavit that the petitioner told her that, after convincing

his parents, he would arrange for the marriage and since

she was not happy with that representation, and in that

temperament, she went to police station and informed the

police requesting them to advise the petitioner to marry

her, however, the police obtained her signature on the

complaint drafted by them. She has further stated that,

after lodging the complaint when the matter was pending

before the Court, they married and their marriage was

registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kunigal Taluk

and presently they are residing together and there is no

dispute or misunderstanding between them. A copy of the

marriage certificate is also produced along with this
5

petition. The original Certificate of Registration of Marriage

is also made available for perusal of this court. As could be

seen from the certificate, the marriage of the petitioner and

the 2nd respondent was solemnized on 25.03.2013 and the

same was registered on that day in the office of the

Marriage Officer, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District.

4) Both the petitioner and the 2nd respondents

are present in person before this Court. The 2nd

respondent submitted that she has been residing with the

petitioner and that they have been residing as husband and

wife for the last four months and there has been no dispute

or misunderstanding between them since the date of

marriage.

5) As noticed supra, according to Respondent

No.2, on account of the petitioner’s refusal to marry her

immediately, she requested the police to advise the

petitioner properly to marry her immediately. Having

regard to the subsequent development and in view of the

fact that the petitioner has married the 2nd respondent and
6

since they have been living happily as husband and wife,

no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution

against the petitioner. The continuance of the prosecution

would be waste of precious public time of the court and

would also cause embarrassment to the parties, which

may also strain the marital relationship. The trial of the

case, for completion of the ritual, is not required to be

completed. In this view of the matter, the prosecution

launched against the petitioner is required to be quashed in

exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

6) In the result, the petition is allowed. The

prosecution launched against the petitioner in C.C.

No.3132/2013 on the file of the V-Additional C.M.M.,

Bangalore, is hereby quashed.

SD/-

JUDGE

KGR*


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.154 seconds.