MR. ARVIND REDDY G v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Bench: SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Karnataka judgment dated 2020-12-15. MR. ARVIND REDDY G v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU TH DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3961 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. MR. ARVIND REDDY. G S/O MR. T. GOPALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 2. MR. GOPALA REDDY. T S/O MR. LATE TIPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 3. MRS. BHAVYA W/O MR. ARVIND REDDY. G AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 4. MRS. PAVITRA. R W/O MR. KUMAR. B AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 5. MR. KUMAR S/O MR. BALARAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 6. MRS. INDIRAMMA W/O MR. GOPALA REDDY. Y AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PETITIONER NOS. 1 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT: R/AT NO. 3, "AAKANKSHA" RD 3 CROSS, SRI SATHYA SAI BABA LAYOUT KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, K R PURAM BANGALORE-560036 7. MRS. JYOTHI W/O MR. ANAND G AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 8. MR. ANAND. G S/O MR. GPPALA REDDY. T AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS PETITIONER NOS. 7 AND 8 ARE RESIDING AT: R/A NO. 33, "SAIBABA NILAYA" ND 2 CROSS, SRI SATHYA SAI BABA LAYOUT KODIHALLI MAIN ROAD, K R PURAM BANGALORE-560036 9. MRS. ARUNA DEVI W/O MR.
SATISH REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A NO. 3, "SAMRUDHI NILAYA" ND 2 CROSS, SRI SATHYA SAI BABA LAYOUT KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, K R PURAM BANGALORE-560036 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH B MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF K. R. PURAM STATION BANGALORE CITY REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 2. MRS. SUMA PRIYA D/O VENU GOPALA REDDY AGED 27 YEARS R/A AT G-1 SRIPADAM GRAND APTS FRIENDS LAYOUT NR. GOVT HOSPITAL SHEEGEHALLI, K. R. PURAM BANGALORE-560036 … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B. G, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. AKASHARAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR. P. C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1 IN CR. NO. 241/2020 PENDING BEFORE THE TH HON'BLE 10 A. C. M. M. , COURT AT MAY HALL, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354B, 427, 494, 506, 498A, 307, 327, 448, 420, 147, 149, 143, 313 OF IPC.
***** THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings in Crime No. 241/2020 registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 354(B), 427, 504, 494, 506, 498A, 307, 327, 448, 420, 147, 143 and 313 read with Section 149 of IPC pending th on the file of 10 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. 2. During the pendency of the above proceedings, the parties had filed a joint compromise petition on 07. 10. 2020 wherein it is stated that respondent No. 2 would be withdrawing all the allegations made against the petitioners. When the matter had taken up on 14. 10. 2020, it was noticed that the amounts agreed to be paid by the petitioners to respondent No. 2 had not been reflected in the joint compromise petition. Hence, counsel sought time. A further affidavit has now been filed on 04. 12.
2020 recording the payment of a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- by way of three demand drafts drawn in favour of respondent No. 2 by the petitioners. 3. Respondent No. 2 – Mrs. Suma Priya is before this Court through video conferencing identified by her counsel Mr. Akash R. Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2. She submits that all the disputes between herself and petitioners have been resolved, amounts which are due to her as also apartment which is due to her as per agreement arrived at have been paid and given respectively. In view thereof, she submits that she has no interest in prosecuting the complaint and she has also agreed in terms of the statement made in the affidavit dated 04. 12. 2020. 4. The petitioners are before this Court through video conferencing identified by their counsel Sri. Siddharth B. Muchandi, learned counsel for the petitioners, who confirm having paid the aforesaid amounts. 5.
In view of the above, payment as also understanding arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No. 2-complainant and respondent No. 2 withdrawing all her allegations made against the petitioners and she being not interested in prosecuting the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there would be no purpose served in continuing the proceedings. As such, taking into account the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the proceedings in Crime No. 241/2020 pending on th the file of 10 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru registered for the alleged aforesaid offences are hereby quashed. 6. Petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- JUDGE Prs*
Source: High Court of Karnataka. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.