Karnataka High Court M S Prakash vs C S Nandini on 28 February, 2014Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2495/2012 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1206/2014
BETWEEN
1. M.S.PRAKASH,
S/O LATE SIDE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
MARAGOWDAANAHALLI,
R/AT KRRAGODU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
2. H.B. MAHESH
S/O LATE BOREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT HULKERE VILLAGE,
KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
3. H.B. YASHODHA
W/O M.S. PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
MARAGOWDAANAHALLI,
R/AT KRRAGODU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
4. JAYAMALA
W/O KRISHANA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT HOLALU VILLAGE,
-2-
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
5. METHREGOWDA
S/O LATE BEOREGJOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKAMANDYA,
KASABA HOBLI,
MANDYA DISTRICT. … PETITIONERS IN CRL.P.NO.2495/2012
(BY SRI C.N. RAJU, ADV.,)
BETWEEN:
1. H.P. PUTTASHENKARA,
S/O LATE BOREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HULKERE VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.
2. BORAMMA
W/O LATE BOREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT
MARAGOWDAANAHALLI,
KRRAGODU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT -571 401. … PETITIONERS IN CRL.P. NO.1206/2014
(BY SRI C.N.RAJU, ADV.,)
AND
1. C.S. NANDINI
D/O SOMASHEKARA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKAKOPALU VILLAGE,
-3-
DUDDAHOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT – 573 118
2. STATE BY MANDYA RURAL POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE – 560 001. … COMMON RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R2 SRI B.VIJAY SHETTY, ADV., FOR R1)
CRL.P NO.2495/2012 IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 5 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC, MANDYA IN CRIME NO.152/2012 OF MANDYA RURAL POLICE STATION, MANDYA.
CRL.P NO.1206/2014 IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE PETRS. NO.1 AND 2 PENDING ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C., MANDYA IN CR. NO.152/2012 OF MANDYA RURAL POLICE BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These two criminal petitions are filed by accused 1 to 7
in Crime No.152/2012 of Mandya Rural Police registered for
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 of IPC
and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. -4-
2. Admittedly, first petitioner in Criminal Petition
No.1206/2014 is the husband, second petitioner is the mother
of husband and petitioners 1 to 5 in Crl.P.2495/2012 are
brother-in-law, brother, sisters and another brother-in-law.
These two petitions are filed seeking quashing of complaint
pending investigation in Crime No.152/2012. It is also stated
that during the pendency of these proceedings, wife-first
respondent in these proceedings had filed an application in
P.Misc.3/2012 seeking maintenance against her husband.
When said matter was pending consideration on the file of Civil
Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Mandya, it is stated that settlement is
arrived at between the parties, wherein husband has agreed to
pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to his wife-first respondent herein
towards full and final settlement of her past, present and
future maintenance, which it is stated is accepted by the wife.
Pursuant to that it is stated that entire amount is paid to wife
and marriage between the parties is dissolved in
MC.No.38/2013. It is also stated that while settlement being
discussed, it is agreed between the parties that first
respondent-wife shall cooperate with petitioners in withdrawing -5-
the criminal complaint that she has lodged against the
petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A
504, 506 and 323 IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961. Accordingly, joint memo is filed in both the criminal
petitions this day by the parties to the present proceeding to
quash the proceeding pending consideration in Crime
No.152/2012 within the jurisdiction of JMFC, Mandya.
3. Admittedly, offences alleged against petitioners herein
are non compoundable offences. Normally, with reference to
such offences, compromise is not permissible. However, in the
light of judgment rendered in Gian Singh -vs- State of Punjab
and Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it is held
by the Apex Court that settlement between the parties with
reference to criminal act referable to robbery, dacoity, rape,
murder, etc., cannot be compounded. However, if the dispute
between the parties is in the nature of matrimony and financial
dispute, the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can quash the said proceedings in the
light of settlement arrived at between the parties. -6-
4. Therefore, in the light of ratio laid down by the Apex
Court in Gian Singh’s case, referred supra, the settlement
arrived at between the parties is accepted, consequently,
complaint pending in Crime No.152/2012 registered by
Mandya Rural Police within the jurisdiction of Court of JMFC,
Mandya, is quashed.
Accordingly, this criminal petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nd/-