IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100229/2020

BETWEEN:

1. UMAKANTH S/O ISHWAR RATHOD

AGE: ABOUT 68 YEARS,

OCC: RETIRED GOVT.SERVANT,

R/O: HOUSE NO.29,

SHETTAR COLONY, BENGERI,

HUBBALLI-580020.

2. VENKATESH S/O UMAKANTH RATHOD

AGE: ABOUT 34 YEARS,

OCC: BANK MANAGER,

R/O: HOUSE NO.29,

SHETTAR COLONY, BENGRI,

HUBBALLI-580020.

...PETITIONERS.

(BY SHRI M M PATIL, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THROUGH HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI P.S.,

REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.

2. SMT.SUDHA.E W/O VENKATESH

AGE: ABOUT 25 YEARS,

OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

2

R/O: TEACHERS COLONY,

NEAR RASTROTHANA SCHOOL,

RAMNAGAR, H.G.HALLI-583212,

BALLARY DIST.

…RESPONDENTS.

(BY SHRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP, FOR R.1;

SHRI ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE, FOR R.2.)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE

IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,

H.B.HALLI, BALLARI, IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.583/2019, ON THE

BASIS OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN

P.C.NO.2/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION

498A, 323, 354B, 354D, 511, 504, 506, 509 READ WITH SECTION 34

OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND SECTION 3 & 4 OF THE

DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961, AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS,

ETC.,.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE

COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The parties to the lis have filed an application under

Section 320(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, placing

on record the compromise entered into between them. The

offences are the ones punishable under section 498(A), 323,

354(b), 354(d), 511, 504, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860, all of which are non compoundable

and therefore, the matter is moved to record such compromise

3

and quash the proceedings. It is also submitted by the learned

counsel that both the husband and wife are now living together.

2.

The compromise recorded by the competent Court

before the Lok Adalath, reads as follows:

“Case is called out before Lok-Adalath.

Petitioner No.1 and 2 and their respective

counsels are present.

Both parties have filed compromise petition

U/O 23 rule 3 of CPC. The contents of the petition

have read over to the both parties. Both are

accepted with the same.

We perused.

It is a petition under Sec.13B of Hindu

Marriage Act seeking divorce by mutual consent.

Now the petitioner No.1 and 2 have agreed to lead

the happy marital life together. Accordingly they

have compromised the matter.

Since both parties are reunion and agreed to

lead marital life together, compromise petition is

deserved to be accepted. In view of the same we

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Compromise petition U/O 23 rule 3 of CPC

filed by the both parties is accepted.

Accordingly petition is disposed off.”

4

3.

The claim of maintenance under section 125 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure is also compromised and the said

order of compromise reads as follows:

“Case is called before Lok-Adalath.

Petitioner, respondent and their respective

counsels are present.

Both parties have filed compromise petition

U/O 23 rule 3 of CPC. The contents of the

compromise petition have read over to the both

parties. Both are accepted with the same.

We perused.

It is a petition under Sec.125 of CrPC praying

to

award

monthly

maintenance

from

the

respondent. Now the petitioner and respondent are

ready and willing to lead the happy marital life.

Accordingly they have compromised the matter.

Since both parties are reunion and ready to

lead their marital life together, compromise petition

is deserved to be accepted. In view of the

compromise we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Compromise petition U/O 23 rule 3 of CPC

filed by the both parties