SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri D Kantharaja vs State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017

BEFORE

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

CRL.P. NO.6865/2017
BETWEEN

1. SRI. D. KANTHARAJA,
S/O LATE DODDA HOBLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE DODDA OBLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK

3. SRI. LAKSHMIPRASAD,
S/O LATE DODDA OBLAIAH,
OCC:LECTURER,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

ALL THE THREE ARE R/AT
“LAXMINARASIMHASWAMY NILAYA”,
5TH CROSS, VINAYAK NAGAR,
VV EXTENSION, HOSAKOTE-562114
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

4. SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI,
W/O RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC:TYPIST,
R/AT GANDHI CIRCLE,
CHANNARAYAPATTANA-573 116
HASSAN DISTRICT … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. J. S. HALASHETTI, ADV.)
2

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY K. R. PURAM POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560 036
NOW R/BY SPECIAL P.P.,
BENGALURU-560 001

2. SMT. SUMA S. K.,
W/O D. KANTHARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC:ACCOUNTANT,
PREVIOUSLY R/AT BHAGAVATHI
LAYOUT, SIRA GATE,
TUMAKURU – 572101.
NOW C/O EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT
FUND ORGANIZATION,
NO.36, LAKSHMI COMPLEX,
NH-4, OLD MADRAS ROAD,
OPPOSITE SYNDICATE BANK,
KR PURAM, WHITEFIELD,
BENGALURU-560036 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1.
R2-SERVED. )

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.268/2016 FILED BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT, 1961 AND SEC.498A R/W
34 OF IPC WHICH IS CURRENTLY PENDING ON THE
FILE OF X A.C.M.M., MAYO HALL, BENGALURU CITY
MARKED AS ANNEXURE NO.2.

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

ORDER

Petitioner No.1-husband and his counsel are

present before the court. Respondent No.2-wife in

spite of notice issued, remained absent and un-

represented.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners files a

Memo dated 15.12.2017 along with a certified copy of,

the Memorandum of settlement entered into between

the parties u/s.89 of CPC read with Rules 24 and 25 of

the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005,

before the Mediation Centre in respect of MC

No.2745/2017, wherein at paragraph 6 of the

Memorandum of Settlement dated 7.12.2017 the

respondent No.2 has agreed to co-operate with the

petitioner No.1 in closing/quashing the proceedings in

Crime No.268/2016 registered by the first respondent

Police for the offence punishable under section 498A of

IPC and Sections 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The parties have appeared before the IV Addl.

Family Court at Bengaluru, in MC No.2745/2017 and
4

filed the Memorandum of Settlement. The learned

Judge after satisfying with regard to the settlement

entered into between the parties and after recording its

satisfaction, accepted the Mediation report and granted

decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner therein.

4. In view of the above said acceptance of the

compromise before a Judicial Court, there is no need

once again to insist for the personal presence of

respondent No.2 when the notice issued by this court is

served upon her.

5. 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,
5

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. ………….”

6. 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
6

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
enable them to settle down in life and live
peacefully. If the parties ponder over their
7

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.”

7. 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
8

decision. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to

quash the proceedings.

8. 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, all further proceedings in Crime

No.268/2016 registered by the first respondent Police

pending on the file of the X ACMM Court, Mayo Hall,

Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under section

498A of IPC and Sections 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PL*

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh