H M Harsha vs State By on 23 November, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017

BEFORE

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

CRL.P. NO. 6353/2017
BETWEEN

1. H. M. HARSHA,
SON OF H. MUPPANNA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/ AT NO.204, 12TH CROSS,
23RD MAIN, II PHASE,
J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU 78.

2. SMT. SUNANDA,
WIFE OF H. MUPPANNA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/ AT NO.204, 12TH CROSS,
23RD MAIN, II PHASE,
J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU 78.

3. H. MUPPANNA,
S/O OF LATE H. DYAMANNA,
R/ AT NO.204,
12TH CROSS, 23RD MAIN,
II PHSE, J.P. NAGAR,
BENGALURU 78.

4. SMT. CHETHANA,
W/ OF RUDRESH,
R/ AT NO.793, 12TH CROSS,
23RD MAIN, II PHASE,
J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU 78. … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. ROOPESHA B., ADV.)
2

AND

1. STATE BY BASAVANAGUDI
WOMEN POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY,
REP.BY S.P.P – 560 076

2. SMT. VANITHA,
W/O H.M. HARSHA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/ AT, MELANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HIRENALLURE HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK 577548. … RESPONDENTS

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

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST
PETITIONERS IN CR. NO. 33/2016 REGISTERED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT AND DROP THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.17310/2017 PENDING BEFORE THE II
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

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

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

respondent No.2 and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Perused the

records.

2. The petitioners and their counsel, respondent

No.2 and her counsel are present before the court and
3

they have filed a Joint memo reporting that they have

resolved the dispute among themselves, which is arising

out of a family dispute between themselves. Also

perused the factual aspects of this case.

3. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are

husband and wife. Due to the dispute between

themselves, it appears the wife has filed a complaint

against the petitioners for the offence punishable under

sections 498A, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and

the same is registered in CC No.17310/2017 on the file

of the II Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru. Essentially, the

case is arising out of a family dispute.

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.

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 servants while working
in their capacity as public servants, cannot
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.”

5. 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
5

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
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
6

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
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
7

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.”

6. In view of the above said facts and

circumstances of the case, this case also falls under the

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

decision. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to

quash the proceedings.

7. 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 between

themselves.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

Consequently, the proceedings in CC No.17310/2017
8

(arising out of Crime No.33/2016) on the file of the II

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

punishable under Sections 506, 498A, 323 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 *