«.e_Kcra::1;1nga1v 13' Block, Bangalore
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAI)
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST; '-
BEFORE; V
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTIIQE
CRIMINAL PETI'!"IOI\_I Ne}}"..'?.?i»1/20:(59.i.'»...
BETWEEN:
1. Shri Ashok V. I-Iegde H _
8/ 0. V. S. Hegde, Age; .32V--yea_rs..b
R/0. No.11, B:.'H__.C.S'LaydL3.t _ ,_
2n'-"1 Cross, :i3'I'1'}{.II1 St7a.gei, B"anga1O'1'e"
2. Shri V. S. E-Eegde » _ A
Age: .62, Ye£=_fS,°@.;CQ: -SefYi"ce '
R /0". Vij.eiyaEshree1,' Ja.n'1a.khandimath Layout
Sadihanakerfi' H:"(I1urt;ssbs",I' Dha1*Wad-8
3. Smt. ayashree-
Age: 65 ye arvs, O.CC:.*S€1'ViCe
O. Florinéi Estate V
Kr upanidh'i"'C'o11ege
PETITIONERS
(EsyCs1¥1. s§1:iI¥§;p;ei~1th T. Patil. Adv.)
:1) State of Karnataka
Represented by SPP, Dharwad
W"
2. Smt. Sneha, W/O. Ashok I-Iegde
Age: 25 years, OCC: Service
R/o. 3rd Cross, Vinayaknagar
Extension Area, Bagalkot
(By Sri.P. H. Gotkhindi, HCGP for R1;
Sri. P. A. Kulkarni, Advocate R2)
THIs cRI..R F'ILED":_U]S.4'82x cR.iii"cVv.i.'v4si{THi:.:i'
ADVOCATE FOR THE PET1TI'QNER PRAYI'1'E€} THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE I=LEAsEI3._, TO QUASHE THE FIR
PROCEEDINGS REOij.'~~V..,UNI3ER' "B_A..GALKOT TOWN P.S.I
NO.282/2008 U/S. 493'(A),-- 323,f';i.5iO4;'SO6R./W. SECTION 34
IPC AND 4 OF D713. ACT,-._ T ' ..
THIS C;RL§i?,:,§COi\iiFINi3"(5N°Fbi§i'Ailli/IISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MAD,E';THF_3_ .R_O.LLOwt1RO;.
kWCfaRnRR
'I"'h.e' «.pVetitiOn_ers".._:a;=e facing Charge for offences
punishab1e°t:n(ierVSeC'tion"i498A, 323, 504, 506 R/w. Section
34,.':,oi'f and SxeC'tiiCi'1'4 of D.P.Act. They seek quashing of
L' P.S.I No.282/2008 invoking provisions of
section ésfzci'-.R.C.
"As seen from the fact situation, the prosecution was
i' --,,initi.ated against the petitioners on the basis of the Complaint
__Si.Jb1'1'1itt€d by Smt. Sneha, the 2nd respondent herein alleging
M
Lo.)
that after her marriage with the 131 petitioner Ashok V.
Hegde, she hoped for peaceful marital life. But the
petitioners joined with each other and p.erpetrated
continuous mental and physical cruelty on her; Her’
miserable. She alleged that thegmain Of the ”
petitioners is demanding extra dowry .ja’1id–t’ inittthisilregardthey
harassed her. On that basis, the case is registeredpp ellftd tiheeii’
petitioners are facing charge asi’ndic.ated above.
3. The contention ttoftthe fpetitioners. is that no doubt
complainant hasinitiatedvprosecutionvandvthereafter she has
realized that§–._thep”ia_ctio’n. Viivavsmbaseless. It is also
averretd that.thereA:’has'”he’en’ mutual reconciliation between
the parties_and_ arnicableiilisettlement has also been reached to
corrfipensate hereby viray of future maintenance. ln this
it.l1e3f*have also agreed to pay Rs.4,00,000/– towards
in fi,ill”.and final settlement.
4.. The matter is listed after notice to the respondents
and learned Counsel Shri P. A. Kulkarni has entered
it appearance. Today the lea ounse1 for the respondent
files an affidavit of the 2nd respondent in which she also
supports the contention of the petitioners. It is also’-noticed
that parties have decided to terminate the”:«-proceedings’
against each other and in this regard. she hgaiswaisio; paid i it
Rs.-4,00,000/~ towards maintenance asiinal
also mentioned that in I\/I.C”i_No_i3O/2O()i9,Vth-eiiipartieas~ihaire=.i’
consented for dissolution of m.a_rria_ge_psubj.ect’ payment of
consolidated amount;’«…_..i:<'1{., towards her
maintenance. The averrnen_ts clearly indicate
that she no of the proceedings
against the. the fact that
there to._-"terminate the proceedings
including the ¢ri:;;iii5]a: ¢a§§;r«i Similar affidavit is filed by Shri
V. S.V.I~Iegdie; _fath.e:r of list petitioner and they have also
V. _enQ1'o:seql—loopy of the"'proceedings in MG. No.29/2009.
consideration all these circumstances
and"'app.1yingi"iratio of the decision in case of Shri B. S. Joshi
:g"Vs._st.ai:e" of Haryana and others {AIR 2003 so 1386)
_ 'wherein the Apex Court in similar circumstances granted
V. ,,reiief of quashing the proceedings against the husband and
&'é€/
his relatives for offences under Section 498A of IPC,v'u._I am
satisfied that petitioners are entitled to relief.
Hence the petition is allowed.
No.282/2008 are quashed.
gab*