IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4188 OF 2017
BETWEEN :
MADHUSUDHANA D.S.
@ MADUSUDHAN
S/O. SIDDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOSAMALA
STREET BEGUR,
CHAMARAJANAGARA,
KARNATAKA-571109. … PETITIONER
(BY SRI: KUMARA K.G. ADV.,)
AND :
1. STATE BY KENGERI
POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560 060,
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. C. MANGALA,
D/O. CHIKKASIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT, 5TH CROSS,
GUTTE ANJANEYA SWAMY
TEMPLE ROAD, KENGERI,
BENGALURU-560 060. … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SPP-II FOR R-1, SRI.
ARAVIND S. ADV. FOR R-2)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CRL.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.174/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 56TH A.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU, FIR LODGED BY THE (FIRST RESPONDENT)
KENGERI POLICE STATION, AGAINST THE PETITIONER/
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A AND 420 OF
IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT, 1961.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner and his counsel are present.
Respondent No.2 is present before the court. Counsel
for the respondents remained absent.
2. Both the parties have already filed a joint
memo reporting compromise between themselves. At the
insistence of the court, both the parties have also filed
their respective Affidavits reporting the compromise
between themselves.
3. Petition is filed for quashing of the crime
registered against the petitioner in Crime No.174/2017
on the file of the 56th Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate for the offence punishable under Sections
3
498A, 420 of IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
4. It is evident from the decision of the Apex
Court reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 between Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab and another wherein the Apex
Court has observed that “criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand
on a different footing – Offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or
like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony
relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in nature and
parties have resolved their entire dispute, High Court
may quash criminal proceedings – High Court, in such
cases, must consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law
despite settlement and compromise between parties and
whether to secure ends of justice, it is appropriate the
4
criminal case is put to an end – If such question(s) are
answered in the affirmative, High Court shall be well
within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceedings.
5. In view of the above said directives of the
Apex Court and on examination of the factual aspects of
this court and considering the Affidavits of the parties,
it clearly disclose that the offenses alleged against the
petitioner arising from the matrimonial relationship and
it is a family dispute wherein wrong is personal and
private in nature and the petitioner and the 2nd
respondent being husband and wife having resolved
their entire dispute with an intention to live happily in
future. Therefore, I am of the opinion that consideration
of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would
tantamount to abuse of process of law as the matter has
been compromised between the parties. Hence, there is
no impediment to quash the proceedings as prayed for.
Hence, the joint memo filed by the parties and Affidavits
filed in support of the joint memo are hereby accepted.
5
6. Consequently, the petition is allowed. All
the further proceedings to be taken in respect of Crime
No.174/2017 pending on the file of Kengeri Police
Station and as well as the 56th Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru are hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
snc