K N Sridhar vs State Of Karnataka on 14 June, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017

BEFORE

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

CRL.P NO. 8592/2016
C/W
CRL. P. 8593/2016 AND CRL. P. 5250/2013

IN CRL.P 8592/2016

BETWEEN

1. K. N. SRIDHAR,
S/O K. B. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O NO.604, 12TH B MAIN ROAD
‘B’ SECTOR, YELAHANKA UPANAGARA
BANGALORE – 560 064

2. K. B. NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O BACHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O NO.604, 12TH B MAIN ROAD
B SECTOR YELAHANKA UPANAGARA
BANGALORE -560 064

3. SMT. INDRAMMA,
W/O K. B. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O NO.604, 12TH B MAIN ROAD
B SECTOR, YELAHANKA UPANAGARA
BANGALORE – 506 064 … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR G., ADV. FOR
SRI. SHANKARAPPA S., ADV.)
2

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HALSUR GATE WOMEN P.S
REP. BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BANGALORE – 560 001.

2. SMT ASHWINI H R
W/O SRIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT NO.452, 10TH A CROSS
12TH MAIN, MIG ‘A’ SECTOR
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BANGALORE – 560 064. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1.
SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADV. FOR
SMT. RACHITA NANAIAH, ADV. FOR R-2.)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT
THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.10813/2013 (CR.NO.103/2013)
ON THE FILE OF VI ACMM, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498A, 506 OF IPC AND SECs. 3 4 OF D.P ACT BY
ALLOWING THE PETITION.

IN CRL.P 8593/2016

BETWEEN

1. K. N. SRIDHAR,
S/O K. B. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O NO.604, 12TH B MAIN ROAD
‘B’ SECTOR, YELAHANKA UPANAGARA
BANGALORE – 560 064

2. K. B. NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O BACHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
3

R/O NO.604, 12TH B MAIN ROAD,
B SECTOR, YELAHANKA UPANAGARA
BANGALORE -560 064

3. SMT. INDRAMMA,
W/O K. B. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O NO.604, 12TH B MAIN ROAD
B SECTOR, YELAHANKA UPANAGARA
BANGALORE – 506 064

4. SMT. TEJASWINI K. N.,
W/O DR. RAMESH A.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO.61, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
2ND CROSS, SRI. M. V. LAYOUT,
VIRUPAKSHAPURA,
BANGALORE – 500 097.

5. DR. RAMESH A.,
S/O ANJANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O NO.61, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
2ND CROSS, SRI. M. V. LAYOUT,
VIRUPAKSHAPURA,
BANGALORE – 500 097.

6. SMT. VEENAMMA,
W/O A. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O FLAT NO.4,
H. DURGA SHREYAS APARTMENT,
PILLAGOWDA LAYOUT,
RAMACHANDRAPURA,
BANGALORE – 560 013.

7. A. NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O LATE B. M. ANJANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/O FLAT NO.4,
H. DURGA SHREYAS APARTMENT,
PILLAGOWDA LAYOUT,
4

RAMACHANDRAPURA,
BANGALORE – 560 013. … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR G., ADV. FOR
SRI. SHANKARAPPA S., ADV.)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY YELAHANKA NEW TOWN P.S.,
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE – 560 001.

2. H. R. ASHWINI,
W/O K. N. SRIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/O NO.452, MIG,
10TH A CROSS, 12TH MAIN,
A-SECTOR, YELAHANKA
NEW TOWN, BANGALORE -560064
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1.
SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADV. FOR
SMT. RACHITA NANAIAH, ADV. FOR R-2.)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT
THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.28731/2015 (CR.NO.209/2014)
ON THE FILE OF XLIV ACMM, BANGALORE FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 417 R/W 34 OF SIPC BY ALLOWING THE
PETITION.

IN CRL.P 5250/2013

BETWEEN

1. SMT. TEJASWINI K. N.,
W/O DR. RAMESH A.,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
HOUSE WIFE,
5

2. DR. RAMESH A.,
S/O OF ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS VETERINARY OFFICER,
VETERINARY DISPENSARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AH AND VS
KADUNOOR, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK

BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 61,
2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
SRI. M. V. LAYOUT,
VIRUPAKSHAPURA,
BANALORE – 500 097. … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR G., ADV. FOR
SRI. SHANKARAPPA S., ADV.)

AND

1. STATE BY HALSUR GATE WOMEN
POLICE STATION, REP. BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BANGALORE – 560 001.

2. SMT. ASHWINI H. R.,
W/O SRIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 452, 10TH “A” CROSS,
12TH MAIN, MIG A” SECTOR
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BANGALORE – 560 064. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1.
SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADV. FOR
SMT. RACHITA NANAIAH, ADV. FOR R-2.)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT
THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED: 17.7.13 AND QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN
C.C.NO.10813/13 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI
6

ACMM, BANGALORE (CRIME NO.103/13 OF HALASUR GATE
WOMEN P.S., BANGALORE CITY.)

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION FINAL HEARING RESPECTIVELY THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Crl. P. No.8592/2016 and Crl. P. No. 5250/2013

arising out of C.C. No.10813/2013 are pending on the file

of VI Additional CMM, Bengaluru and Crl. P. No.8593/2016

arising out of C.C. No.28731/2015 is pending on the file

of XLIV Additional CMM, Bengaluru.

2. The petitioners are accused in the above criminal

cases. The petitioners and the respondents are present

before the court along with their respective counsels.

3. The counsels appearing for the

accused/petitioner No.1 (Husband) and his other relatives

and the 2nd respondent (Wife) submit that, the dispute

between the parties in all the above noted three petitions

are settled before the Bangalore Mediation Centre in MC

No.1566/2016, wherein they have agreed to compromise

the criminal cases in CC No.28731/2015 and CC

No.10813/2013 registered for the offence punishable
7

under section 498-A of IPC and also under Sections 3 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the parties have also

agreed to compromise the matter in Crl. P. No.8593/2016

arising out of CC No.28731/2015 pending on the file of the

XLIV ACMM, Bengaluru, registered for the offence

punishable under Section 417 r/w. 34 of IPC.

4. In all the above cases, the 2nd respondent is the

complainant before the trial Court and due to domestic

differences between the 2nd respondent- Ashwini H.R. and

the 1st Petitioner- K.N. Sridhar, the cases have been

cropped up. The offences under Sections 498-A and 420

of IPC are non-compoundable in nature. However,

looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in all

these cases, there is no dispute with regard to the

marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent

and they lived as husband and wife for some time and

thereafter differences arose between them, which led to

filing of some criminal complaints by the 2nd respondent

against her husband (1st Petitioner) as well as his family

members, for harassment. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in Crl.

P. No.8592/2016 and 8593/2016 are none other than the
8

father and mother of the 1st petitioner and Petitioner Nos.

4 to 7 in Crl. P. No.8593/2016 are none other than the

sister, brother-in-law and other relatives of petitioner

No.1. Likewise, the petitioners in Crl.P. No. 5250/2013 are

the sister and brother-in-law of 1st petitioner-K.N. Sridhar.

Therefore, all the petitioners in the above said cases are

relatives of Petitioner No.1 and they are all from the same

family. The 2nd respondent in fact filed various criminal

cases, which led to filing of the charge sheet against the

petitioners before different courts.

5. The 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner have

entered into compromise by way of memorandum of

settlement before the Bangalore Mediation Centre in

connection with M.C. No.1566/2016, wherein they have

arrived at a conclusion that, Respondent No.2 and

Petitioner No.1 cannot pull-on themselves as Husband

and Wife in future. Therefore they have approached the

family court for grant of a decree of divorce on terms in

the agreement entered into between them. Further in the

same agreement it is accepted that Respondent No.2 and

Petitioners would co-operate with each other for quashing
9

of the criminal proceedings lodged against the petitioners

by the 2nd respondent, in different course.

6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2, who

appeared before the court today, submits that he

contacted the 2nd respondent and her father, and informed

about the case being posted today and ascertained that

they have no objection for this court to record

compromise and close the cases. With all responsibility,

learned counsel submitted that, in the above

circumstances, the court can accept the same.

7. In the above said circumstances, the materials

available on record clearly show that, the dispute between

the parties is domestic one and it is purely personal and

private in nature and the parties have resolved the entire

conflict between themselves and as they want to live

separately in future, in order to facilitate themselves, the

criminal matters are to be closed.

8. In view of the facts and circumstances of this

case, it is worth to note hear a decision reported in
10

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

Punjab and Another, wherein it is held that,-

“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”.

11

9. The guidelines as narrated in the above case is

perused and the facts of this case also falls within the

categories mentioned in the above said guidelines issued

by the Hon’ble Apex Court. There is no legal impediment

for this court to quash the proceedings as prayed for.

Hence, the following order:

ORDER

The petitions are allowed. Consequently
the proceedings in C.C. No.10813/2013
[related to Crl. P. No.8592/2016 and Crl. P.
No. 5250/2013] registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of
IPC and also under Sections 3 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the file of VI
Additional CMM, Bengaluru and the
proceedings C.C. No.28731/2015 [related to
Crl. P. No.8593/2016] registered for the
offence punishable under section 417 r/w. 34
of IPC pending on the file of XLIV Additional
CMM, Bengaluru, against the petitioners in
these petitions, are hereby quashed.

In view of disposal of these petitions, I.A No.1/2016

filed for stay in Crl.P. Nos. 8592/2016 and 8593/2016 and

I.A. No. 2/2013 filed for Vacating Stay and IA No.1/2014
12

and filed for early hearing in Crl.P. No.5250/2013 do not

survive for consideration. Hence, the said applications

stand disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR*

Leave a Comment

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