SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Radhakrishna B vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 January, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018

BEFORE

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

CRL.P. NO.2113/2016
BETWEEN

1. RADHAKRISHNA B
S/O BADREGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RADHAKRISHNA NILAYA, NO.22,
2ND BLOCK, 3RD E CROSS,
TIMMAIAH LAYOUT,
BASAVESWARA NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560079.

2. BADREGOUDA L
S/O LATE VEERBHADHRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RADHAKRISHNA NILAYA, NO.22,
2ND BLOCK, 3RD E CROSS,
TIMMAIAH LAYOUT,
BASAVESWARA NAGARA
BANGALORE – 560079.

3. SMT. MANGALAGOWRAMMA
W/O BADREGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RADHAKRISHNA NILAYA,
NO.22, 2ND BLOCK, 3RD E CROSS,
TIMMAIAH LAYOUT,
BASAVESWARA NAGARA
BANGALORE – 79.

4. BOREGOUDA
S/O BAIRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
# 163, 2ND MAIN,
2

VIJAYNANDANAGARA,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE – 96. … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.GURURAJ JOSHI., ADV.)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANDYA WEST PS
MANDYA TOWN-571401
KARNATAKA.

2. SMT. SAVITA B T
W/O RADHAKRISHNA B
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
C/O T.T.GIRIGOWDA,
SRI RANGANTHA NILAYA,
NO.KL-188, BEHIND JAIL,
MARIGOWDA LAYOUT,
MANDYA TOWN-571401
KARNATAKA. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.S.RACHAIAH., HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. UMESH N.K., ADV. FOR
SMT.HEMALATHA MAHISHI., ADV. FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASHS THE FALSE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE
R-2 DATED 02.02.2015, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-A AND THE REGISTRATION OF FALSE FIR
REGISTERED IN CR.NO.20/2015, WHICH IS PRODUCED
HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-B AND THE FALSE CHARGE
SHEET FILED BY THE R-1 POLICE IN CR.NO.20/2015 OF
MANDYA TOWN P.S., WHICH IS PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-C AND THE ORDER OF THE ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA IN TAKING COGNIZANCE
FOR THE OFFENCES AGAINST THE PETITIONER. DATED
29.09.2015 AND FOR ISSUING THE PROCESS THE
PETITIONER. BY ARRAYING THE PETITIONER. AS
ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.1846/2015 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.
3

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA, WHICH IS
PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-D AS ILLEGAL,
ERRONEOUS, CONTRARY TO LAW AND ARE ABUSE OF
PROCESS OF THE COURT IN THIS PETITION.

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

ORDER

The petitioners and respondent No.2 are present

before the court. All of them have filed a Joint Memo

before the court seeking quashing of the entire

proceedings in CC No.1846/2015 arising out of Crime

No.20/2015, pending on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge

and JMFC, Mandya, for the offence punishable under

sections 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. There is no dispute between the parties that

petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are the husband

and wife. Due to some matrimonial differences, the

second respondent appears to have been filed a

complaint against the petitioners, which culminated in

CC No.1846/2015.

4

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused

the records.

4. The record discloses that the parties have

entered into a compromise between themselves before

the Bangalore Mediation Centre in connection with this

case and they have arrived at a conclusion as narrated

in the Compromise Petition. Though there is a serious

allegations against the petitioners, but the Compromise

Petition discloses that the entire conflict have been

resolved between themselves. In this connection, the

parties have filed a Joint Memo and the same is taken

on record. The Joint Memo is read along with the

Mediator’s report. There is no legal impediment for this

court to quash the proceedings.

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:-

5

“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.”

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
6

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
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
7

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
8

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. This case also falls under the categories

mentioned in the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision.

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 as the

parties have resolved their entire conflict between

themselves, there is no legal impediment for this Court

to quash the proceedings.

9

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

Consequently, the proceedings in CC No.1846/2015

(arising out of Crime No.20/2015) on the file of the

Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) JMFC Court, Mandya,

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504,

506 read with Section 34 of IPC is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PL*

Leave a Reply

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

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 Rules of Group, If You agree then Message us on Above Number.

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