Sri. K.R. Manjunath vs 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.8752/2017
C/W.
CRL.P. NO.653/2017

IN CRL.P. NO.8752/2017

BETWEEN

SRI. K.R. MANJUNATH
S/O K RAMACHANDRA
R/AT NO.69/A, 1ST CROSS
KEMPEGOWDANAGAR
BENGALURU 560019 … PETITIONER

(BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR D., ADV.)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR POLICE STATION
BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU 560001

2. SMT PREMA M
W/O K R MANJUNATH
R/AT NO.65 A, 1ST CROSS
K G NAGAR
BENGALURU 560019 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1.
SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADV. FOR R-2.)
2

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
SPL.C.C.NO.269/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
498A R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT AND SEC.3(1)(10) OF SCHEDULED
CASTES AND SCHEDULES TRIBES (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT.
******

IN CRL.P. NO.653/2017

BETWEEN

1. B.K. NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O LATE KEMPANNA RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 205, 10TH MAIN ROAD,
NAGENDRA BLOCK,
BENGALURU – 560 050.

2. K R SUHASINI
W/O SRINIVASAN NAGARAJ
R/AT NO. 19, 2ND CROSS,
SANJAY REDDY STREET,
NARAYANAPPA LAYOUT,
SUBBANNA PALYA,
BENGALURU – 560 033. … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR D., ADV. FOR
SRI. SHIVA SHANKAR.C, ADV.)

AND

1. STATE BY KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR POLICE,
KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 019.

2. SMT. PREMA M
W/O K R MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
3

R/AT NO. 65A, 1ST CROSS,
K.G.NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 019.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1
SRI. HANEESH BHANDARY T., ADV. FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C THAT TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
SPL.C.C.NO.269/2016 IN CR.NO.13/2016 OF
KEMPEGOWDA POLICE ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, CITY
CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
3(1)(x) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATTROCITIES) ACT
AND SEC. 498(A) R/W 34 OF
IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

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

COMMON ORDER

Sri Hareesh Bhandary, files vakalath for respondent

No.2 in both the cases. Petitioners and respondent No.2

and their respective counsels are present before the

court. Both the parties have filed their joint affidavits

before this court, submitting that they have no objection

to quash the proceedings in Spl.CC No.269 of 2016

pending on the file of the II Addl. City Civil and Sessions

Judge, and Special Judge, City Civil Court, Bengaluru.
4

2. The record discloses that it is virtually a

matrimonial dispute that arose between the parties due

to the inter-caste marriage between the

petitioner/accused No.1 K.R. Manjunath and respondent

No.2 Prema.M. The allegations made in the charge

sheet papers are that, due to the inter-caste marriage,

the family members of the petitioners are not happy,

and thereafter, it appears due to the family dispute, the

second respondent has lodged a complaint invoking the

provisions of Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of IPC and

also invoked Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

On reading of the entire materials on record, it reveals

that due to the family dispute arising out of the inter-

caste marriage, they invoked the provision of Section

3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. As the matter has

been resolved between the parties by entering into the

compromise, I am of the opinion that there cannot be

any social impact on the compromise entered into

between the parties in view of their relationship and

also the dispute is mainly due to the family dispute
5

themselves. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to

quash the proceedings.

3. 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 – 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.

Thus, held, 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 servant while working
in their capacity as public servants, cannot
6

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
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
different footing- Officers 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 a
criminal proceedings or continuation of
criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law.”

4. As noted above, the factual aspects of this case

also falls under the category of the guidelines issued by

the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, I am of the opinion,

that the proceedings in Spl.CC No.269/2016 pending on

the file of the II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
7

Bengaluru, deserves to be quashed, otherwise, it wouild

amounts to abuse of process of the court.

Accordingly, both the petitions are hereby allowed.

Consequently, the entire proceedings in Spl. CC

No.269/2016 pending on the file of the II Addl. City Civil

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for the offence

punishable under section 498A of IPC and Sections 3

4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of IPC

and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act

are hereby quashed

Sd/-

JUDGE

PL*

Leave a Comment

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