SUSAN JACOB AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition is filed seeking quashing of proceedings in CC.No.22677/2011 on the file of X ACMM, Bangalore, which was initiated pursuant to Crime No.25/2011 of Mahadevapura Police station for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of Penal Code r/w Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) It is seen that second respondent-complainant, who had initiated aforesaid criminal proceedings had also filed a petition in MC.No.860/2011 against second petitioner herein, her husband, seeking decree of divorce under Sec. 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and subsequently converted in to a petition under the relevant provisions of Indian Divorce Act, 1869. It is also seen that during the pendency of MC petition, which was pending on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore and CC.No.22677/2011, the parties were referred to mediation before the Bangalore Mediation Centre, where the dispute between the parties was resolved and memorandum of settlement was prepared under Sec. 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1980 r/w Rules 24 and 25 of Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005 and was filed, in to the Court on 29.9.2012.

(3.) The settlement was subject, to 21 conditions, which included second respondent-complainant cooperating with second petitioner for quashing of complaint in CC.No.22677/2011 pending on the file of X ACMM, Bangalore, as per condition No. 15 and second petitioner agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 to second respondent-complainant towards full and final settlement of her claim regarding permanent alimony/maintenance past, present and future. In the said memorandum of settlement, there is also reference to parties together informing the police to defreeze the SB account of second petitioner as well as opening the locker maintained by him in the bank to enable second respondent-complainant to collect the jewels, if any, kept in the said locker. With this back ground, this matter came up before this court on 18.2.2014 to ensure that terms of settlement is completed and thereafter, this petition being allowed quashing the proceedings initiated against second petitioner.