SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

C.P Narayana Swamy vs State By Krishnarajapura Police on 10 July, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2018

BEFORE

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

CRL.P. NO.888/2015
AND
CRL.P. NO.5031/2018

IN CRL.P. NO.888/2015

BETWEEN

1. C. P. NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O LATE CHENNARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

2. SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O C. P. NARAYANA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

3. CHINNARAJU
S/O C. P. NARAYANA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

4. SUDHIR
S/O C. P. NARAYANA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT K.G. PURA
SHIDLAGHATTA, CHEEMANGALA(P)
JANGAMAKOTE(H), CHIKKABALLAPURA
DISTRICT – 562 101
… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G. B., ADV.)
2

IN CRL.P. 5031/2018

BETWEEN

1. MUNEGOWDA
S/O C P NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT K G PURA, SHIDLAGHATTA
CHICKBALLAPURA DIST 562 101

ALSO AT #19, 2ND FLOOR
C/O RAMA KRISHNA BUILDING
3RD CROSS, LAKSHMIPURA LAYOUT
DEVASANDRA, K.R.PURAM
BANGALORE

2. ARUNA KUMARI
D/O REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT NO.141/1
D.M CHANNAPPA BUILDING
DODDAMARALI, NANDI HOBLI
CHICKABALLAPUR 562 101

ALSO AT
C/O SRINIVASAIAH HOME
2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS
BYATARAYANAPURA
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G. B. ADV.)

AND

1. STATE BY KRISHNARAJAPURA
POLICE, K.R.PURA, BANGALORE-36
STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
STATE BY SPP

2. DIVYA M.
W/O MUNEGOWDA N.
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT NO.19, C/O RAMAKRISHNA
3

BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR
DEVASANDRA, 3rd CROSS,
K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE-36
… RESPONDENTS
(COMMON IN BOTH PETITIONS)

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SARAVANA S. ADV. FOR R2.)

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.888/2015 IS FILED
U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE
SHEET FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE IN
CRIME NO.89/2012 AND IN C.C.NO.51030/2013 AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
S.C.NO.1217/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLV
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE AS AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5031/2018 IS FILED
U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE
SHEET FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE IN
CR.NO.89/2012 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.1217/2014, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-72) AS AGAINST
THESE PETITIONERS.

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Sri. Saravana S., Advocate, files power for

Respondent No.2 in Crl. P. No.5031/2018 and he has

been already appearing for Respondent No.2 in Crl. P.

No.888/2015.

4

2. Both the petitions are arising out of common

case in SC No.1217/2014. It is reported that both the

parties have compromised the matter by compounding

the offences alleged in the said case. In both the cases,

the 2nd respondent has filed separate affidavit stating

that, she has no objection to quash the said proceedings

on the ground that, the parties have compromised the

matters.

3. The petitioners in Criminal Petition

No.888/2015 are arraigned as Accused Nos. 2 to 5 and

Petitioners in Crl.P. 5031/2018 are arraigned as

Accused Nos. 1 and 6 respectively in SC No.1217/2014,

which is pending on the file of 71st Addl. City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 497, 324, 506(B), 307 r/w.

Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, ‘D.P. Act’).

4. The 2nd respondent, in the affidavit has

categorically stated that, her husband-Munegowda has

filed a divorce petition in MC No.3184/2015 on the file

of the 5th Addl. Family Court, Bengaluru, and the said
5

case was referred to Bengaluru Mediation Centre to

explore the possibility of settlement. Thereafter, at the

intervention of the mediator, relatives and family friends

of the petitioners and Respondent No.2, they have

amicably resolved their dispute and in fact they have

decided to live together in future for the better interest

of themselves keeping in mind the future of their

children.

5. The offences alleged in SC No.1217/2014

are under Sections 498-A, 497, 324, 506(2) and 307 of

IPC and also under Sections 3 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. Except Section 307 of IPC perhaps all

other offences are arising out of domestic relationship

between the parties. Section 307 in fact is not attracted

because, there was actually no injuries caused to the

2nd respondent. It is only alleged that the Accused

No.1-Munegowda was holding a knife in his hand and

threatened to kill the 2nd respondent. No injury

certificate as such is produced before the trial Court in

this regard. Therefore, there is no attraction of Section

307 of IPC, though the police have invoked the said
6

provision. Even otherwise, in a decision of the Hon’ble

Apex Court reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 [Narinder

Singh Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.], it is

categorically stated that, even the offence under Section

307 of IPC is alleged, if the parties have settled matter

between themsevles, though the said offence is a crime

against the society, but depending upon the facts and

circumstances of each cases, the court has to examine

and if necessary the court can permit the parties to

compound the offences. In another ruling reported in

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another [

(2012) 10 SCC 303], it has been held that, when the

dispute between the parties is essentially domestic in

nature and the parties have solved their problems

amongst themselves and particularly the husband and

wife have decided to reside together, the court can

exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In my

opinion, this is one such case. Therefore, the pendency

of the criminal case should not be a hurdle for the

parties to lead their life happily in future. Therefore,

when they compromised the matter, it is just and

necessary to quash the proceedings as prayed for.
7

Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I

pass the following:

ORDER

The petitions are allowed. The affidavit
filed by the 2nd respondent and the compromise
application filed by the parties in these two
petitions are accepted. Consequently, the case in
SC No.1217/2014 (arising out of Crime
No.89/2012 of Krishnarajapura Police Station)
registered against the petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 497, 324,
506(B), 307 r/w. 34 of IPC and Sections 3 4 of
D.P. Act., on the file of the XLV Addl. City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru/Principal City Civil
and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru, which is now
stated to have been pending on the file of 71st
Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
(CCH-72) and all further proceedings therein, in
so far as the petitioners concerned, are hereby
quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation