Sri. Frank Rajan vs State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017

BEFORE

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

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4608/2017

BETWEEN

SRI. FRANK RAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O JAYARAJAN, #26,
11TH CROSS, BDS NAGAR,
K. NARAYANAPURA,
KOTHANUR POST,
BANGALORE – 560 077. … PETITIONER

(BY SMT. KUSUMA R. PRASAD, ADV. FOR
SRI. L. M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADV.)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOTHANUR POLICE STATION,
KOTHANUR, BANGALORE – 560 077.

2. SMT. RANI MADAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
W/O FRANK RAJAN, #26,
11TH CROSS, BDS NAGAR,
K. NARAYANAPURA,
KOTHANUR POST,
BANGALORE – 560 077. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1.
SRI. ARVIND B. REDDY, ADV. FOR R-2.)
2

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT
THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.52959/2017
ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.63/2016 REGISTERED AGAINST
THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 323, 324, 355, 504, 506 OF IPC
ON THE FILE OF XI ACMM, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE.

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Sri. Aravind B. Reddy, Advocate, files power for

respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner and respondent No.2 along with

their respective counsels are present before the court.

Both the petitioner and respondent the parties have filed a

joint memo reporting compromise between them and they

have no objection to quash C.C. No.52959/2017.

3. It is seen from the records that, on the basis of

the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, the

respondent No.1-police have filed charge sheet for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 355,

504 and 406 of IPC. Except 498-A all other offences noted

above appear to be compoundable in nature. As it is the
3

family dispute between them and that mainly the dispute

arose between the husband and wife, they have settled the

dispute between themselves. The records also disclose

that respondent No.2 has also submitted a letter to the

jurisdictional police showing her interest to withdraw the

complaint, in which she has also stated that herself and

petitioner have joined together and they have been living

together as husband and wife, and that, the husband has

agreed to take care of the welfare of his daughter and the

2nd respondent.

4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, as

the matter is purely private and personal in nature

between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, there is no

legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings.

5. It is worth to note here a decision reported in

(2012) 10 SCC 303 between Gian Singh Vs. State of

Punjab and Another, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court

has laid down certain guidelines in the following manner:-
4

“Heinous and serious offences of mental
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 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
predominantingly Civil flavour stand on a different
footing- “if the 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 proceeding or continuation of criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of
law despite settlement and compromise between
parties and to secure ends of justice, it is appropriate
the criminal case is 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
proceedings”.

6. The facts and circumstances of this case falls

within the categories of the offences mentioned in the
5

guidelines laid down in Gian Sigh’s case cited supra.

Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly,

the following order is passed:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. The case in C.C.

No.52959/2017 arising out of Crime
No.63/2016 pending on the file of the XI
Additional CMM at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru City,
for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 323, 324, 355, 504 and 406 of IPC and
all further proceedings are quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR*

Leave a Comment

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