Sri. Deepkumar H R vs State Of Karnataka By on 2 June, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3424/2017

BETWEEN

Sri. Deepkumar H.R,
S/o. Sri. Rajashekar,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at No.191 D, 8th Cross,
9th Main, BEML 3rd Stage,
Rajarajeshwarinagar,
Bengaluru – 560099
…Petitioner
(By Sri. K.S. Ganesha, Advocate)

AND

1. State of Karnataka
By Rajarajeshwarinagar
Police Station,
Bengaluru – 560099

2. Smt. S. Divya
W/o Sri. Deepkumar H.R.
Aged about 30 years,
R/at No.191 D, 8th Cross,
9th Main, BEML 3rd Stage,
Rajarajeshwarinagar,
Bengaluru – 560099
…Respondents
(By Sri. S. Rachaiah, HCGP for R1;
Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, Advocate for R2)
2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET
FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C. NO.27411/2016
(CR.NO.110/2016) DATED 26.07.2016 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC AND SECTION
3, 4 OF D.P. ACT AT RAJARAJESHWARI POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ACMM,
BANGALORE .

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The learned counsel Sri.I.S.Pramod Chandra takes

notice for Respondent No.2 and files vakalath for Respondent

No.2.

2. Both the parties and counsels file joint memo

reporting the settlement between the parties.

3. Joint memo is recorded. It is also seen from the

records that the parties have approached the Bengaluru

Mediation Centre being referred in M.C.No.3424/2016 and

they have entered into compromise therein. In the said

compromise also, they have agreed for settlement and in

READ  University Grants Commission & ... vs Neha Anil Bobde(Gadekar) on 19 September, 2013

consequence of the same, the petitioner has agreed to

withdraw the criminal case filed in C.C.No.27411/2016
3

pending on the file of III Additional C.M.M, Bengaluru,

subject to the other conditions, i.e., the 1st petitioner has to

pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- before the Matrimonial Court

in the name of the 2nd respondent and he has to make

payment of Rs.10,00,000/- before this Court in favour of the

2nd respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner is making

payment of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft in

favour of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent

acknowledges the receipt of the D.D for Rs.10,00,000/-

bearing its No.409161 dated 27.03.2017.

4. The matter is between the husband and wife and it

is purely a matrimonial dispute which has been squared up

between themselves in order to live happily in future. In the

decision reported in GIAN SINGH v/s. STATE OF PUNJAB

(2012) 10 SCC 303), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as

under:

Thus, held, heinous and serious offences
of metal depravity, murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or
under special statutes like Prevention of
Corruption Act or offences committed by public
servants while working in their capacity as
4

public servants, cannot be quashed even though
victim or victim’s family and offender have
settled the dispute–Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on
society.

– But criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
different footing – Offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or like transactions or offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc.
or family disputes where the wrong is basically
private or personal in nature and parties have
resolved their entire dispute, High Court may
quash criminal proceedings- High Court, in such
cases, must consider whether it would be unfair
or contrary to interest of justice to continue with
the criminal proceedings or continuation of
criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse
of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between parties and whether to
secure ends of justice, it is appropriate the
criminal case is not put to an end – If such
question(s) are answered in the affirmative, High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to
quash the criminal proceeding.

5

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid certain

guidelines under what circumstance the High Court has to

exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash the criminal

proceeding. This particular case also falls within the

category as mentioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As it

is a matrimonial dispute between husband and wife, the

wrong is basically private and personal in nature and the

parties have resolved entire dispute between themselves.

Under the above said facts and circumstances, there is no

legal impediment to quash the proceedings even though the

offence alleged are under Section 498-A of IPC and under

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, are non-

compoundable in nature.

6. Hence, the following order:

The joint memo filed by the parties is hereby recorded.

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings

pending before the III Additional C.M.M, Bengaluru in
6

C.C.No.27411/2016 arising out of Crime No.110/2016 for

the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act and further proceedings are

hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE
bnv

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *