Mr. B. N. Sandeep vs The Police Inspector on 13 June, 2017

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*

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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