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*
