ABHISHEK N @ ABHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel Sri. Shanthanagaraja, Advocate, files vakalath for the 2nd respondent.

(2.) The parties in both the cases noted above filed independent joint memo reporting compromise between the parties. The 2nd respondent also filed an affidavit in both the cases accepting the contents of the joint memo and also she has stated no objections to quash the proceedings. Perused the joint memos and also a memorandum of agreement entered into between the parties before the Mysuru District Mediation Centre in M.C. No.42/2012 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Mysuru. The said Memo of Agreement was accepted by the Family Court while granting the Decree of Divorce in favour of the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent in Criminal Petition No.6695/2017.

(3.) There is no dispute that the 1stpetitioner and the 2nd respondent in Criminal Petition No.6695/2017 are the husband and wife. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the relatives of Petitioner No.1. Likewise, the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.806/2018 is also a relative of Petitioner No.1 in Crl. P. No.89/2014 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 , 341, 342, 307 r/w. 149 of IPC and also under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, 'D.P. Act'). The allegations made in the complaint which culminated in S.C. No.16/2015 shows that on 22.07.2014 there was a quarrel between the 2nd respondent and family members of Petitioner No.1- Kumar and in that context, it is alleged that the petitioner-Abhishek in Crl.P. No.806/2018 went to bring Kerosene in order to pour upon the 2nd respondent and to kill her. The other allegations are that, the other accused persons have assaulted her and wrongfully restrained her etc. Therefore, no severe injuries have been sustained to the 2nd respondent.