Karnataka High CourtDinesh G B S/O G.Basavanappa vs State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2009Author:Huluvadi G.RameshBench:Huluvadi G.RameshIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORFET

Dated this the 2"" November, 2009

Before

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HLrL'ijV;4.')g  ;L<(z tIE3I;  F"

Criminal Petitions 5540 / 5'54I»./i_-{$009 2 V' 

Between:

In Crl.P 5540/2009

I

Dinesh G B S/0 G B2:savann.;ipp£1*--.  
37 yrs,R/:1 # 18/2, 2"" FlQ.o.r_ '  V . 
Nagiippa szree:,IPa~13Ce ﬁsuttahaéli  
Bemgaiore    i '" ' .

G Basavaianap;;$3;.'_S/0 

78 y¥rse..._ _ 2

S 1n:1vQm3<a:'aVJ11i11:{'W/ 0 ~GVB.g1SVi1=ganhappa
65m. 4. . .  

Both are rt/'a #_'21V0./A, M.1G',"'i<a1}aha:11

',Vf§_inob¥2z:naga1*, 'shjinogav

-.!~
....... ..

 '-.&':ALsoI{;*21z307, 14 'main
' ; _RM\_/, .Ba_ng'a.iQre 80

Petitioners

(By .sri'1B%i15i'r, f4Iegd¢';"_'Aav.)

  é A_f1d.-

; State of Karnataka -- by
 ' --.I§J§0or Gate. Women Poiice Station
 Bangalore



Netllravathi @ Nethra, 25 yrs
W/o G B Dinesh, R/a House # l9
2"" Cross, Someshwa1'anngar
Jayanagar 1"' Block, Bangalore l l

(By Sri A V Ramakrishna, GP)

In Crl.P 5541/2009

Nethravathi @ Nethra, 25 yrs

W/o G B Dinesh, R/a House # 19 V
Kumari Nilaya, 2"" Cross  '
Someshwaranagar, Jayamagar 1. Block
Bangalore ll

(By Sri S Dore Raju, Adv.)

And:

IQ

StateofVK£1:tni1'Lai};:;:__: bye"  ll
Safijaynagarzi. Polizie Station
Bai3.._galC=:'e V     

DinesAh<.G' B S/o"B 
3"] yrs. Rio # "l.fA, "V1" l's-?I_21i1'i~--"
4E'fl1G Colony,'RMV I Stage

 Sianj2;yn:<1Vgara, Ba1:g..=a..!ore 94

;-:7..VS':'*i--./A V__Ra£l:F1£l1%l"'iS_l]na, GP}

Resp()1ideTJS ' 

l" ._ ' T Petitioner

Respondents

V 'l A V""I'l'&l1e.<;e'  Petitions are ﬁled underS. 482of the Cr.PC praying
 -to quasi'; tlle--A'enL'i.re proceedings in Crime No.33/2009 before the VI Addl.
Cwgml Bangalore; in cc I 1.536/2009 before the VH1 Add}. CMM, Bnagalore.

V_   These Criminal Petitions coming on for Admission this day, the Court
 -made the following: XV



ORDERThese two petitions are taken up together for disposai._....._ 4' »

Petitioner in Cr1.P 5540/2009 is the husband and p:etitione1'.iiii1  4_

5541/2009 is the wife. In connection with a.;:natriinon§.a1 offence ' .

under s.498A, 506 we rfws.3&4of the4'Do'wiry:ii Prohibit.io1iy2xe_t--~.oin'i--the

compiaint filed by the husband simuitancousiy case is _aiso tfi«i.e'd'--iby the wiﬁe V

for the offence under S504, 506, i49,y_§_§?ii(:».3gvtt.ic_h areigjendingwevvbefore the VI

Add}. CMM and VIII Addl. cm/it;' Byztti.ga1s:;i¢. "  .In the t'it'st..  appears case iswunder investigation. In so far as
second caseis concerned i:which_is..fi.!--ed by the wife, already investigation is

cornpiete and charge sheet iis--._fii]edi. A joint affidavit has been filed by the

    .....i 2 , it transpires; in between the two petitioners, there is ii matrirnoniai case

peiidiizgV«before,_theiV;'i7aini]y Court, Bangalore seeking for divorce which is

V _posted"on Z-__'3...i. E1009. It  the submission of the counsei representing the

. pharties thziziafter these crimina! proceedings are closed, they wouid tile :1 joint

ii--.}"1"lt3<Vi"IV1O"~-i'h€t1'(3 also seeking for rnutual divorce and due to some

We



misunderstanding, compiaints came to be filed and now they are no more at
logger heads and intend to settle the matter amicably. Pursuantf to some

understanding between the parties. petitioner husband is said_.to_ha1ye an

amount of Rs.10 lakhs in three demand drafts amounting to  Izics, 3.50  V '

and 3.50 lacs respectiiveiy drawn on Apex:'Btink,' «Vidihana Braneh,

Bangniore and given to the wife. She niso agrees that she has no. fttrth'-er'e.laiini

towards permanent ahmony or any otiierﬂailaim agains't.yyIf3._ineish yyho is the

husband.Both the partiesi'i".;t_ve su'birnit'teid thatﬁhey iia~;ei'ino objection to quash
the proceedings pevn.di4ng'iIibefore the E\I{agis'tré_te Court. Counsei for the parties
submit th2it__the_ partiesintend_to'~cornpo:md the offence and have entered into
terms and they maybe liermittied compound the offence.V '  in View the joint memo filed and the subrnissioii made, and in View
oifi'the-ratio v}t1ii:d«.do=.i{ii..i--i1 the case ofB S Joshi Vs State of Haryana & Anr-

[LR 2003, _pet'it.ioiis are ailowed. Impugned proceedings pending before the

" and Vliiiloiixddl. CMM, Bnngaiore are quashed permitting the parties to

 compo.u_nd' the offence.Both the petitions are allowed.