AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Jagannathan, J.—When this matter was called, the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that the parties have settled the matter amicably and want to put an end to the litigation and further, the husband has also given talaq to the Respondent-wife and, therefore, referring to the aforesaid events and also to the affidavit filed by R-2. the submission made is that the proceedings in Crime No. 94/2010 be quashed.
For R-2. learned Counsel Shri H.H. Kaladgi has entered appearance by filing vakalath.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also the learned Government Pleader for the Respondent State and perused the affidavit filed by R-2 wife, wherein she has stated that due to some differences, she had lodged the complaint earlier, but now the matter is settled between the parties and she has received Rs. 6,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and by way of future maintenance and the said amount is received by way of Rs. 5,00,000/- through demand draft and Rs. 1,00,000/- by cash. R-2 has also stated in the affidavit that she is also withdrawing the maintenance petition filed before the JMFC Court at Sira in Crl. Misc. No. 311/2010. Therefore, the prayer is to quash the proceedings as well as the F.I.R. as R-2 has no objection for the same.
Having taken note of the contents of the affidavit, which are confirmed by R-2 in respect of receipt of the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- in the manner indicated in the affidavit, and since the first Petitioner is represented by the second Petitioner, who is his father, in my view, in the light of the stand taken by the complainant in the affidavit, no case, therefore, can be made out for the offence u/s 307 of the I.P.C. So far as the other offences are concerned, in view of the settlement between the parties, who were basically husband and wife till talaq was given by the husband, to meet the ends of justice, it is necessary to put an end to the dispute between the parties once and for all. Moreover, R-2 has no objection for quashing the F.I.R., which has given rise to the case being registered against the husband and others. Further, a submission is also made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that, even the articles, which were given at the time of marriage, would be returned to R-2 today itself.
In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings pursuant to F.I.R. in Crime No. 94/2010 stand quashed. The affidavit filed by R-2 shall form part and parcel of this order.