SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mallesh Prakash Rane vs Smt. Deepika G.D. on 21 February, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018

BEFORE

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

CRL.P. NO. 9029/2017

BETWEEN

1. MALLESH PRAKASH RANE
S/O PRAKASH RANE,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/O KARWAR,
UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY R/O HADAPASAR,PUNE,
MAHARASHTRA STATE-411 028

2. PRAKASH SADANANDA RANE
S/O SADANANDA RANE,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O KARWAR,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 301

3. SMT PRASHEELA PRAKASH RANE
W/O PRAKASH RANE,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA
DISTRICT-581 301 … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. V. P. KULKARNI., ADV.)

AND

1. SMT. DEEPIKA G.D.
D/O D.S. GAONKAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/O YOJANA RESIDENCE WORKING,
PLAN MYSORE,
PRESENTLY R/O JBA-3,
2

JARAKABANDE RESERVE,
ABBIGERE ROAD,
NEAR KAMMAGONDANAHALLI,
JALAHALLI (WEST)
BENGALURU -560 015

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
WOMEN POLICE STATION,
DEVARAJA SUB-DIVISION,
MYSURU.
BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP FOR R2,
SRI. GURURAJ JOSHI., ADV FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC MYSORE IN C.C.NO.218/2015.

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

ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes

notice for respondent No.2 – State.

2. Petitioners 1 to 3 are present and counsel for

the petitioners also present before the court.

Respondent No.1 and her counsel also present before

the court.

3

3. Heard the learned High Court Government

Pleader for the State, petitioners, respondent No.2 and

the counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

4. Today, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1

have filed their affidavits before this court withdrawing

the mutual allegations against each other before the

criminal court as well as before this court and also both

of them have conceded for quashing of the proceedings

in CC No.218/2015 pending on the file of the IV Addl.

Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) JMFC, Mysuru. The parties who

are present before the court have admitted the contents

of the affidavit filed before this court.

5. It is seen from the records that, the first

respondent lodged a complaint before the Women Police

Station, Mysuru, making certain allegations against the

petitioners. Consequently, a case has been registered

in Crime No.134/2014 by the Women Police Station and

thereafter, it appears the Women Police Station filed a

charge sheet in CC No.218/2015 on the file of the IV

Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) JMFC, JLB Road, Mysuru.
4

6. There is no dispute with regard to the

relationship between the parties i.e., the first petitioner

and the first respondent are the husband and wife. Due

to some family differences, respondent No.1 has lodged

a complaint against the petitioner herein. The offences

alleged are punishable u/s.498A read with Section 34 of

IPC and also u/s.3, 4 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

7. 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.

5

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 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
6

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
in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction.
7

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.”

9. On careful perusal of the entire factual aspects

of this case, it is purely a dispute between the husband

and wife and it is personal and private in nature. In

order to set at rest the entire dispute, they wanted to

see that the criminal cases lodged against the

petitioners are to be quashed. This case also falls under

the category, as mentioned in the Hon’ble Apex Court’s
8

decision, there is no legal impediment for this Court to

quash the proceedings.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Accepting

the affidavits filed by the first petitioner and the first

respondent, the proceedings in CC No.218/2015 (arising

out of Crime No.134/2014) on the file of the IV

Additional Senior Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) JMFC, Mysuru,

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A read

with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry

Prohibition Act 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 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