Shyam Babu R vs The Station House Officer on 4 December, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017

BEFORE

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

CRL.P. NO. 8665/2017
BETWEEN

1. SHYAM BABU R.,
AGED AOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O SRI R.RAJASEKARAN,

2. RAJASEKARAN R.,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
S/O LATE R.RAMANATHAN,

3. KRISHNAKUMARI B
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
W/O SRI. RAJASEKARAN R.,

4. SMITHA R., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
W/O SRI. SHIVAKUMAR G.A.,

PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT NO.16A, 1ST FLOOR,
NAKKEERAR STREET,
KAVYA GARDEN, PHASE-2,
PORUR, CHENNAI-600116

5. RADHA KRISHNAN P.,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O SRI PACKRISWAMI,
R/AT NO.A-162,
JAINAGAR, THIRUVARUMBUR,
TIRUCHIRAPPALLI,
TAMIL NADU-620013

6. KAMATCHI GUPTA R.,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
2

S/O LATE RAMANATHAN,
R/AT NO.793, 13TH CROSS,
16TH MAIN, B.T.M LAYOUT
2ND STAGE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560076 … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. GURUNATH T. S., ADV.)

AND

1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
TILAK NAGAR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560 011

REP. BY ITS, THE SPP, HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. NAGANANDINI B.P.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
W/O SRI. SHYAM BABU. R.,
PRESENTLY R/AT 36/36.
RANGA NIVAS (GROUND FLOOR),
3RD CROSS, K.V.LAYOUT,
4TH BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560011 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1
SRI. ABHILASH N., ADV. FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS BY THE 1ST RESOPONDENT IN
C.C.NO.3682/2015 PENDING BEFORE THE II
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3

ORDER

Office objections are over ruled. Sri Abhilash N.,

learned counsel has filed vakalath for respondent No.2.

2. Petitioner No.1-Shyam Babu and respondent

No.2-B.P. Naganandini, and their respective counsels

are present before the court. Heard the parties and

their counsels. Both of them have filed a Joint Memo

before this court reporting compromise between

themselves and consequently, respondent No.2 has no

objection to quash the entire proceedings in CC

No.3682/2015 pending on the file of the II Addl. CMM,

Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under sections

498A, 354 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and

Sections 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. There is no dispute that petitioner No.1 and

respondent No.2 are husband and wife. The wife has

filed complaint against the petitioner and others for the

above said offences. The dispute between the parties

essentially arose out of matrimonial relationship. Now,

the parties have compounded the offences to live
4

happily hereinafter. They have also filed MC Petition

No.3841/2017, which is pending on the file of the City

Family Court, Bengaluru.

4. In view of the above said facts and

circumstances of the case and as there is no legal

impediment to quash the proceedings, I would like to

refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another

reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein it 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.

5

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

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
6

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. Therefore, every effort should be made
in the interest of the individuals in order to
7

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.”

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

decisions. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to

quash the proceedings.

8

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.3682/2015

(arising out of Crime No.61/2014) pending on the file

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

punishable under Sections 498A, 354 and 506 read with

Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PL*

Leave a Comment

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