AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Pinto
This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 39/2010 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 498A and 506 r/w. Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, on the basis of the complaint of Smt.Jayeta Mandal - respondent No. 1. Police have filed a charge sheet and case in numbered as C.C. No. 38842/2010.
Heard Smt.Bhanu Ravinder, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Siji Malayil, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and also Sri Raja Subramanya Bhat, learned HCGP for respondent No. 2.
The petitioner and the first respondent are personally present before the Court.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner files a copy of the proceedings of the Family Court which was recorded u/s 89 of CPC by referring the matter to Mediation Center in M.C. No. 683/2011. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 has been concluded by means of the decree of divorce in M.C. No. 688/2011 and one of the terms of the said agreement entered into between the parties u/s 89 of CPC is that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to respondent No. 1 on the date of seeking to quash the proceedings. It is submitted by the learned Counsels for the parties that the wife/respondent No. 1 has received the said sum and that the respondent No. 1 has no claim what so ever against the petitioner. It is further submitted by the Counsel for the respondent No. 1 that he has no objection for quashing the proceedings.
I have gone through the material on record. Having regard to the settlement arrived at before the Mediation Center in pursuance of the matrimonial ease, the proceedings pending before the Criminal Court would be sheer waste of the valuable judicial time. Hence- proceedings in C.C. No. 38842/2010 pending before the Second Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Bangalore is hereby quashed.
It is submitted by Smt.Bhanu Ravindra that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- by way of fixed deposit receipt before the Family Court in M.C. No. 688/2011. In view of the payment by the petitioner, the Family Court is directed to return the fixed deposit receipt.