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. 7615/2017
BETWEEN
1. K SHARATH,
S/O KRISHNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
2. SMT DAYAMANI,
W/O KRISHNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
3. SHRI KRISHNEGOWDA,
S/O LATE KODI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
ALL THE ABOVE R/AT NO.43,
ANUGRAHA, VENKATALINGHIAH
LAYOUT, SIDDARTHA LAYOUT,
MYSURU-570 011 … PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G. B., ADV.)
AND
1. STATE BY WOMEN P.S
DEVARAJ SUB-DIVISION,
MYSURU CITY, MYSURU.
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SMT KAVYA,
W/O SHARATH,
D/O SRI. K S DEVRAJ,
2
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
PRESENTLY, R/AT NO.191,
9TH MAIN, E BLOCK,3RD STAGE,
VIJAYNAGAR, MYSURU-570 017
ALSO AT HOUSE NO.43,
ANUGRAHA, VENKATALINGAIAH
SIDDARTHA LAYOUT,
MYSURU-570 011 … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1
N. R. GIRISHA, ADV. FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 16.09.2016 IN FIR
NO.28/2016 FOR TEH OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A) AND 307
R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.7642/2016 PENDING BEFORE
THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
MYSURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri N.R. Girisha, learned counsel files vakalath for
respondent No.2. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned counsel for 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
respondent No.2 has filed her affidavit submitting that
they have resolved the dispute among themselves,
which is arising out of a family dispute between them. I
have, also perused the factual aspects of this case. The
second respondent who is present before the court
states that she has no objection to quash the
proceedings as prayed in the petition.
3. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are
husband and wife. Due to the dispute between
themselves, it appears the wife has lodged a complaint
against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
sections 498A, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and
u/s.3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which
came to be registered in Crime No.17/2016 of Nazarbad
Police Station. Thereafter, the complaint came to be
transferred to Women Police Station, Mysuru City and
registered in Crime No.28/2016 of Women Police
Station, Mysuru City. After completion of investigation
filed charge sheet, registered a case in CC
No.7642/2016 on the file of the IV Addl. Civil Judge
4
(Sr. Dn.) JMFC Court, Mysuru. 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 – 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
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
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
6which 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
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
7
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.
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 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.7642/2016
(arising out of Crime No.28/2016) on the file of the IV
8
Additional Senior Civil Judge JMFC, Mysuru, for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307 read with
Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PL*
