1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO. 9798/2017
BETWEEN
1. GOVINDRAJU N.,
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED 38 YEARS,
2. JAYAMMA,
W/O VINCENT PAUL,
AGED 50 YEARS,
BOTH R/AT NO.472,
1ST MAIN,PANCHASHEELANAGAR,
MUDALAPALYA, BENGALURU – 560 072
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GURURAJ YADRAVI, ADV. FOR
SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
THE SHO, BASAVANAGUDI WPS,
BENGALURU CITY, REP. BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-01
2. SMT. SHRUTHI,
AGED 26 YEARS,
W/O GOVINDRAJU N.
R/AT 3RD CROSS, HEROHALLY,
MADHAVESHWARNAGAR,
SUNKADAKATTE,
BENGALURU-560 091 … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1
SRI. M. V. SRINIVASA, ADV. FOR R-2)
2
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.22596/2015 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner No.1-husband and his counsel,
respondent No.2-wife and her counsel are present
before the court.
2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and the parties
who are before the court.
3. It is submitted by the parties that they have
entered into a compromise and filed a Memorandum of
Settlement u/s.89 read with Rule 24 and 25 of the
Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005,
along with the affidavit of the second respondent – wife,
stating that the proceedings pending in CC
No.22596/2015 on the file of the II ACMM Court,
Bengaluru, is to be quashed.
3
4. On perusal of the Memorandum of Settlement,
it reveals that the terms and conditions of settlement
have been categorically mentioned at paragraph 4 that,
both the parties have accepted that they would take
appropriate steps for quashing of CC No.22596/2015.
In support of the settlement, respondent No.2 files an
affidavit to that effect.
5. In view of the settlement, the first petitioner is
making payment of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs
Only) by way of two DDs drawn in favour of the second
respondent. The second respondent who is present
before the court acknowledges the receipt of the said
DDs. And submits that she has no objection to record
the compromise and pass appropriate order.
6. There is no dispute that the petitioner No.1 and
the second respondent are the husband and wife and
due to some family dispute, it appears the wife has filed
a Criminal Case against the husband and his family
members and the same has been registered in Crime
No.52/2015 and later, culminated into CC
4
No.22596/2015 on the file of the II Addl. CMM,
Bengaluru, which is sought to be quashed.
7. At this stage, it is worth to refer 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:-
“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. ………….”
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
5
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
6Cr.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
7
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. In view of the above said facts and
circumstances of the case, this case also falls under the
category as mentioned in the Hon’ble Apex Court’s
decision. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to
quash the proceedings.
10. 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,
8
and the parties have resolved their entire conflict
between themselves.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Consequently, the further proceedings in CC
No.22596/2015 pending on the file of the II ACMM
Court, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under
sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and
Sections 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PL*
