1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3863/2017
BETWEEN
1. MR. B. N. SANDEEP,
S/O. SRI. B. P. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
2. MR. B. P. NAGARAJU,
S/O.LATE PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
3. SMT. PREMALATHA,
S/O SRI. B. P. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT NO. 858/17 (10),
3RD-A-MAIN ROAD,
10TH CROSS, K.N.EXTENSION,
1ST STAGE, II PHASE,
BANGALORE – 560 022.
4. MR. DEVAPRASAD,
S/O. SRI. A. GEORGE SAMUEL,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 22, DIMDU,
1ST CROSS, SHARAVATHI NAGAR,
SHIVAMOGGA. … PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. NOVA BETHANIA, ADV.)
2
AND
1. THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
WOMEN POLICE STATION,
MYSURU – 560 033.
2. MRS. NANCY PRIYANJALI P.,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
W/O MR. B. N. SANDEEP,
D/O MR. P. ANAND STANLEY,
R/AT PLOT NO. 1, SAI OM NAIVAS – 24,
BRINDVAN EXTENSION 1ST STAGE,
MYSURU – 570 020. … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1.)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT
THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN
C.C.NO.128/2014 (CR.NO.126/2014) FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF
D.P ACT OF MAHILA P.S., MYSURU, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Dn.) AND JMFC, MYSURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The first petitioner (husband) is present before
the court. The respondent No.2 (wife) in person present
before the court. The father and mother of respondent
No.2 are also present before the court.
3
2. The petitioners and respondent No.2 submit
that they have compounded the offences by way of
compromise entered into between them before Mysuru
Mediation Centre. The said Mediation Centre’s report is
also produced before this court, in which it is stated that
the respondent No.2 would co-operate with the
petitioners to see that the charge sheet filed against the
petitioners pending before the IV Addl. Civil Judge
(Senior Division) JMFC, Mysuru City in CC
No.128/2015 is quashed.
3. The respondent No.2 has also produced
before this court the copy of the Adhar card issued by
the Government of India which bears her photograph
and address. This court is satisfied with regard to the
identity of respondent No.2. Therefore, there is no legal
impediment to record the compromise entered into by
them before the Mysuru Mediation Centre.
4. The record discloses that due to the
matrimonial differences and dispute, the respondent
4
No.2 has lodged a complaint before the Women Police,
Mysuru City in Crime No.126/2014 for the offences
punishable under sections 498A and 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC and also u/ss.3 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. The parties have already approached
the family court in MC No.527/2014, wherein the said
court has recorded the memorandum of agreement
between the parties and declared the marriage between
the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 as null and
void.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, there is no legal impediment
for this court to quash the proceedings as prayed for.
6. In this regard, it is worth to mention here a
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in
2012(10) SCC 303 between Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and Another, wherein it is observed that under
Section 482 of Cr.PC, the High Court can quash the
criminal cases even in respect of non-compoundable
offences. But, before exercising any such inherent
5
powers, the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact.
The Hon’ble Apex Court also categorized some of the
cases in which the parties can compound the offences
even if they are non-compoundable under Section 320
of Cr.PC, before the High Court due to the power vested
in the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC. Further,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has specifically observed that, –
“If the cases are overwhelmingly and
predominantingly Civil flavour stand on a
different footing – and 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”.
6
5. Applying the above guidelines to the case on
hand, it is clear that the matrimonial dispute between
the parties, led to filing of a criminal case. When the
parties have compromised the matter and settled their
conflict, it is just and necessary to quash the
proceedings to enable them to live happily in future.
Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
The petition is allowed. The compromise
entered into between the parties is accepted. The FIR
registered in Crime No.126/2014 (CC No.128/2015) of
Devaraja Sub-Division Women Police Station pending on
the file of IV Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) JMFC, Mysuru
City, for the offences punishable under sections 498-A
and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all further proceedings
are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PL*