UMESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is present before Court. The Court also enquired her.

(2.) Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has filed I.A. No. 3/2014 seeking amendment of the husband's name of respondent No. 2 as 'Umesh Kittur' instead of 'Basavaraj Kittur'. The said application is allowed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to amend the cause title as proposed in the application.

(3.) The learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner and respondent No. 2 have compromised the matter and they are living together after the incident. Though the respondent No. 2 has lodged a complaint against the petitioner - husband for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity). She does not want to prosecute her husband before the Court of law, as they have joined together and living happily along with their two children. In fact they have filed a compromise petition before this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C. for brevity), in which he has categorically stated that after filing of the case against the petitioner by respondent No. 2, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have compromised between themselves and they are living happily along with their children. The dispute between them in no more res integra. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 has no objection to quash the entire proceedings, pending before Sessions Court in S.C. No. 65/2013.