1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO.10009/2017
BETWEEN
1. SRI. R. SANTHOSH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAMA MURTHY
RESIDING AT NO.55, 10TH CROSS,
2ND MAIN, CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU 560 004
2. SMT. SUGUNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
W/O LATE RAMA MURTHY,
RESIDING AT NO.352/1
ACSI HOSPITAL ROAD,
VAPSANDRA,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN AND DIST – 572 108
3. SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAMA MURTHY,
RESIDING AT NO.352/1
ACSI HOSPITAL ROAD,
VAPSANDRA,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN AND DIST- 572 108
4. SMT. MANJULA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
W/O SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY,
RESIDING AT NO.352/1
ACSI HOSPITAL ROAD, VAPSANDRA,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN AND DIST- 572108
2
5. SMT. SHOBHA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
W/O SRI. PRAKASH
RESIDING AT NO.82
HMT LAYOUT,
1ST BLOCK, VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU CITY – 560 004
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VENKATRAMANA K., ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY THE SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU
2. SMT. PUSHPALATHA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
W/O SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR,
RESIDING AT NO.89
SURVEYOR STREET,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560004
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1.
SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2013
AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.1628/2013 BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCES WHICH ARE MADE PENAL U/S 498A,504,506
R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION
ACT.
3
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri Raghavendra K., learned counsel files power for
respondent No.2 and also files the affidavit of respondent
No.2 along with the copy of the memorandum of
settlement entered into between the parties in MC
No.4361/2017.
2. Petitioner No.1 and second respondent are
present before the court. Both of them admit that they
have compromised the matter as per the memorandum of
settlement before the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bengaluru, in MC No.4361/2017, wherein both the parties
have admitted that they will assist each other for quashing
of the entire proceedings in CC No.1628/2013 pending on
the file of the IV Addl. CMM, Bengaluru, for the offence
punishable under sections 498A, 506, 504 read with
Section 34 of IPC and also u/ss.3 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act.
4
3. On careful perusal of the entire materials on
record, there is no dispute between petitioner No.1 and
second respondent that they are the husband and wife and
subsequently, due to some family differences, the
respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioners
for the alleged offences. On the basis of which, the Police
have investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet
before the court and inturn the said case is now pending
before the IV Addl. ACMM, Bengaluru.
4. On the basis of the compromise entered into
between the parties, the Family Court i.e., the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in MC No.4361/2017 has
granted a decree of divorce accepting the compromise
between the parties. Therefore, there is no legal
impediment to quash the proceedings as prayed kfor by
virtue of the compromise.
5. In this regard, it is worth to note here 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:-
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. On perusal of the factual aspects of this case, this
case also falls within the category of the decision cited
supra. Under the above said circumstances, I pass the
following:
6
ORDER
The Petition is allowed. The Memorandum of
Settlement dated 11.1.2018 entered into between the
parties are hereby accepted. Consequently, all further
proceedings in CC No.1628/2013 pending on the file of the
IV Addl. CMM, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable
under section 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC
and Sections 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PL*