Sri Kamlesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 November, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017

BEFORE

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

CRL.P. NO.6635/2017

BETWEEN

1. SRI. KAMLESH.
S/O FUTTERMAL,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
NO.20, 3RD FLOOR,
SWETHA COMPLEX,
RAJANNA LANE,
NAGARATHPET CROSS,
BENGALURU-560 002

2. SRI HIRAICHAND,
S/O SUKHRAJI,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NAGARATHPET,
BENGALURU-560 002

3. SMT. VIMALA DEVI,
W/O HIRAICHAND,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
NAGARATHPET,
BENGALURU-560 002

4. FUTTERMAL
S/O SUKHRAJI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
NO.20, 3RD FLOOR,
SWETHA COMPLEX,
RAJANNA LANE,
GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 009

5. SMT SARASWATI DEVI
W/O FUTTERMAL,
2

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
NO.20, 3RD FLOOR,
SWETHA COMPLEX,
RAJANNA LANE,
GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 009

6. SRI MADANLAL
S/O SUKHRAJI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NAGARATHPET,
BENGALURU-560 002

7. SMT BHAVANA
W/O MADAN LAL,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
NAGARATHPET,
BENGALURU-560 002

8. SMT ANITA,
W/O DILIP KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2 40S,
BHARTH NAGAR,
GRANT ROAD
MUMBAI-400 007

9. SRI OATMAL
S/O DHARMCHAND,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.56, CHIKANNA TEMPLE STREET,
3RD FLOOR, SUNKALPET CROSS,
BENGALURU-560 002

10. SRI MISRIMAL INDERMAL
S/O KUNDAN LAL,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
V.V.PURAM,
BENGALURU-560 004

11. SRI CHAMPALAL BHANDARI
S/O BHABOOTMAL,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.8, PORATIK VILLA,
3

RAILWAY PARALLE ROAD,
NEHRUNAGAR, SESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 020 … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED HAFFAR SHAH, ADV.)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ALL WOMENS POLICE STATION
HALASURU GATE
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001

2. SMT SHILPA M KABADI
W/O KAMLESH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
NO.8/1, 2ND FLOOR, AKIPET CROSS,
OBBAIAH LANE,
BENGALURU-560 053 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1.
SRI. MANJUNATH C., ADV. FOR R-2. )

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN
CR.NO.56/2015 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S
498(A) AND 506 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT
ON THE FILE OF HALASUR GATE POLICE STATION
PENDING BEFORE THE VI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU

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

ORDER

Sri Manjunath.C, learned counsel files vakalath for

respondent No.2.

4

2. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, along with

their counsels are present before the Court. Petitioner

No.1 is the husband and respondent No.2 is the wife and

they have filed a Joint Memo before this court stating that

they have compromised the matter and they have

resolved their entire dispute between them in MC

No.3090/2015. The presence of petitioner Nos.2 to 11 is

dispensed with. Respondent No.2 has no objection to

quash the entire proceedings in FIR dated 10.7.2015

registered in Crime No.56/2015 on the file of the Halasoor

gate Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable

under section 498A and 506 of IPC.

2. The record discloses lodging of the complaint

against the husband petitioner No.1 by the second

respondent wife arises out of a family dispute between

themselves.

3. In this context, it is worth to refer the

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Gian Singh

Vs. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303],

wherein the Apex Court has held thus:-

5

“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 – 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
6

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 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.

7

Therefore, every effort should be made in the
interest of the individuals in order to 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.”

8

As the present case also falls under the category of the

guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court, there is no

legal impediment to quash the proceedings so far as the

Crime is concerned. The parties who are present before

the court filed their respective affidavits stating that they

have compromised the matter between themselves. In

view of the above said facts and circumstances of the

case, I pass the following order:

The Petition is allowed. Joint Memo filed by the

parties is hereby accepted and all further proceedings in

Crime No.56/2015 for the offence punishable under

section 498A and 505 read with Sections 3 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act on the file of the Halasoor gate Police

Station, which is pending on the file of V Addl. CMM Court,

Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru City are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PL*

Leave a Comment

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