Govindraju N vs State Of Karnataka By 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. 9798/2017
BETWEEN
1. GOVINDRAJU N.,
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED 38 YEARS,
2. JAYAMMA,
W/O VINCENT PAUL,
AGED 50 YEARS,
BOTH R/AT NO.472,
1ST MAIN,PANCHASHEELANAGAR,
MUDALAPALYA, BENGALURU – 560 072
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GURURAJ YADRAVI, ADV. FOR
SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
THE SHO, BASAVANAGUDI WPS,
BENGALURU CITY, REP. BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-01

2. SMT. SHRUTHI,
AGED 26 YEARS,
W/O GOVINDRAJU N.
R/AT 3RD CROSS, HEROHALLY,
MADHAVESHWARNAGAR,
SUNKADAKATTE,
BENGALURU-560 091 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1
SRI. M. V. SRINIVASA, ADV. FOR R-2)
2

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.22596/2015 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU.

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

ORDER

Petitioner No.1-husband and his counsel,

respondent No.2-wife and her counsel are present

before the court.

2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for

petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and the parties

who are before the court.

3. It is submitted by the parties that they have

entered into a compromise and filed a Memorandum of

Settlement u/s.89 read with Rule 24 and 25 of the

Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005,

along with the affidavit of the second respondent – wife,

stating that the proceedings pending in CC

No.22596/2015 on the file of the II ACMM Court,

Bengaluru, is to be quashed.

3

4. On perusal of the Memorandum of Settlement,

it reveals that the terms and conditions of settlement

have been categorically mentioned at paragraph 4 that,

both the parties have accepted that they would take

appropriate steps for quashing of CC No.22596/2015.

In support of the settlement, respondent No.2 files an

affidavit to that effect.

5. In view of the settlement, the first petitioner is

making payment of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs

Only) by way of two DDs drawn in favour of the second

respondent. The second respondent who is present

before the court acknowledges the receipt of the said

DDs. And submits that she has no objection to record

the compromise and pass appropriate order.

6. There is no dispute that the petitioner No.1 and

the second respondent are the husband and wife and

due to some family dispute, it appears the wife has filed

a Criminal Case against the husband and his family

members and the same has been registered in Crime

No.52/2015 and later, culminated into CC
4

No.22596/2015 on the file of the II Addl. CMM,

Bengaluru, which is sought to be quashed.

7. At this stage, it is worth to refer a decision

rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and

Another reported in [(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. ………….”

8. 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
5

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
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
6

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
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
7

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.”

9. 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.

10. 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,
8

and the parties have resolved their entire conflict

between themselves.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

Consequently, the further proceedings in CC

No.22596/2015 pending on the file of the II ACMM

Court, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under

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

Sections 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby

quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PL*

Leave a Comment

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