Mr. Ranjit Muraleedharan Nair vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 November, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017

BEFORE

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

CRL.P. NO. 7470/2017
BETWEEN

1. MR. RANJIT MURALEEDHARAN NAIR,
S/O.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR K.M.,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT 455 C BLOCK,
MAHAVEER TUSCAN APARTMENTS,
BASAVANNA NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
HOODI, BENGALURU-560 048.

2. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR K M,
AGED 71 YEARS
R/AT C 100/3104 ASRA 70, REMYA
NEAR ATTINKUZHY LPS,
KAZHAKUTTOM P O.,
TRIVANDRUM, KERALA – 695 582

3. REMA BAI A,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT T C 100/3104 ASRA 70,
REMYA, NEAR ATTINKUZHLY LPS,
KAZHAKUTTOM P O.,
TRIVANDRUM KERALA – 695 582
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LAIJU V. LOPEZ, ADV. FOR
SMT. BEENA P. K., ADV.)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KADUGODI POLICE STATION,
OPPOSITE BMTC BUS STAND
KADUGODI, BENGALURU – 560067
REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
2

BENGALURU-560 001

2. MRS RANJITHA JANARADHANA KURUP
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
W/O MR RANJITH MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
R/ AT NO 12023, PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETAN
APARTMENTS, WHITEFIELD,
BENGALURU – 560 048
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1.
SRI. SIJI MALAYIL, ADV. FOR R-2.)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT BEARING CRIME
NO.273/2016 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR
OFFENCES P/U/S 507, 498A AND 34 OF IPC (ANNEXURE-A)
AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.177/2017 ON
THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL C.J.M., BENGALURU RURAL,
BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-F) AGAINST THE PETITIONERS

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

ORDER

Petitioner No.2 is present before the court and has

filed separate Power of Attorney to represent petitioner

Nos.1 3, vide memo dated 9.11.2017 on behalf of all

the petitioners.

2. Respondent No.2 Mrs. Ranjitha Janardhana

Kurup and petitioner No.2, who are present before the

court have submitted that they have compromised the

matter and therefore, they have no objection to quash

the proceedings in CC No.177/2017 arising our of Crime
3

No.273/2016, pending on the file of the I Addl. CJM,

Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under section

507, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. The learned counsels for the petitioner and the

respondent No.2 are also present before the court. The

parties have filed a joint Memo narrating the settlement

between themselves. There is no legal impediment to

quash the proceedings, as the matter is arising out of

matrimonial dispute between the parties to the

proceedings. The matter went before the Bangalore

Mediation Centre and there, they have compromised the

matter and entered into an agreement.

4. At this stage, it is worth to note here a decision

rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and

Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein the Apex Court

has held thus:-

“Power of High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct
and different from power of a criminal court
of compounding offences under S. 320 –

4

Cases where power to quash criminal
proceedings may be exercised where the
parties have settled their dispute, held,
depends on facts and circumstances of each
case – Before exercise of inherent
quashment power under S.482, High Court
must have due regard to nature and gravity
of the crime and its societal impact. ………….”

4. It is also worth to note here the subsequent

decision rendered in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi

and others -vs- Babita Raghuvanshi and another

reported in [(2013) 4 SCC 58], wherein the Apex Court,

particularly referring to the matrimonial disputes, has

laid down a law that the court can exercise powers

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to quash the

proceedings where exclusively they are pertaining to

matrimonial disputes, which reads as follows:-

” The inherent powers of the High Court
under
Section 482 Cr.PC are wide and
unfettered. It is trite to state that the
power under
Section 482 should be
exercised sparingly and with circumspection
only when the Court is convinced on the
basis of material on record, that allowing
the proceedings to continue would be an
5

abuse of process of court or that the ends of
justice require that the proceedings ought to
be quashed. Exercise of such power would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case and it has to be exercised in
appropriate cases in order to do real and
substantial justice for the administration of
which alone the courts exist. Thus, the High
Court in exercise of its inherent powers can
quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or
complaint in appropriate cases in order to
meet the ends of justice and
Section 320
Cr.PC does not limit or affect the powers of
the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.PC.

Consequently, even if the offences are
non-compoundable, if they relate to
matrimonial disputes and the Court is
satisfied that the parties have settled the
same amicably and without any pressure, it
is held that for the purpose of securing ends
of justice,
Section 320 Cr.PC would not be a
bar to the exercise of power of quashing of
IR, complaint or the subsequent criminal
proceedings. The Institution of marriage
occupies an important place and it has an
important role to play in the society.
Therefore, every effort should be made in
the interest of the individuals in order to
6

enable them to settle down in life and live
peacefully. If the parties ponder over their
defaults and terminate their disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law, in order to
do complete justice in the matrimonial
matters, the courts should be less hesitant
in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction.
It is the duty of the courts to encourage
genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes
and
Section 482 Cr.PC enables the High
Court and
Article 142 of the Constitution
enables the Supreme Court to pass such
orders.

In the present case, the appellants (the
husband and his relatives, accused under
Sections 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and
Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961) had not sought compounding of the
offences. They had approached the High
Court under
Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing
of the criminal proceedings. The High Court
ought to have quashed the criminal
proceedings in question by accepting the
settlement arrived at by the parties
concerned.”

5. In view of the above said facts and

circumstances of the case, this case also falls under the
7

category as mentioned in the Hon’ble Apex Court’s

decision. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to

quash the proceedings.

6. Keeping in view of the guidelines of the Hon’ble

Apex Court, this court has applied its mind to the factual

matrix of this case and found that the dispute is

basically a private and personal in nature, and the

parties have resolved their entire conflict and dispute

between themselves.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

Consequently, the proceedings in CC No.177/2017

(arising out of Crime No.273/2016) on the file of the

Additional C.J.M., Bengaluru, for the offences punishable

under Sections 507, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC is

hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PL*

Leave a Comment

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