IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K N PHANEENDRA
Criminal Petition No 6561 of 2017
BETWEEN:
1. DARSHAN NAGARAJ
S/O NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER
R/O NO 4, 3RD FLOOR
KRISHNAPPA BUILDING
OPP. TO VALUE BAZAAR
BASAVANAGAR, HAL
BENGALURU-560 037
PRESENTLY AT
R/O NO 1730/24, 6TH B-CROSS
8TH MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 040
2. SMT PUSHPA NAGARAJ
W/O NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT NO 4, 3RD FLOOR
KRISHNAPPA BUILDING
OPP TO VALUE BAZAAR
BASAVANAGAR, HAL
BENGALURU-560 037
PRESENTLY AT:
HANDLI VILLAGE AND POST
SHANIVARSANTHE HOBLI
SOMVARPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236
3. JAYAMMA @ JAYASHREE
W/O LATE NANJARAJ K N
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT SHANIVARASANTHE PETE ROAD
2
SOMVARA SANTHE PETE
MADIKERI
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 236
PRESENTLY AT
CHANNAPURA MAIN ROAD,
FORT, CHIKAMAGALURU-577 101
4. DHRUVA RAJ H S
S/O SHANTARAJ
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT HANDLI VILLAGE AND POST
SHANIVARASANTHE PETE ROAD
SOMVARPETE
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236 … PETITIONERS
[By Sri Chandramouli H S, Advocate]
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF BASAVANGUDI
WOMEN POLICE STATION
BENGALURU CITY-560 004
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. GEETHA H S
W/O DARSHAN NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
NO 36, 2ND CROSS
VEERABHADRA SWAMY NILAYA
BALA GANGADHARA NAGAR
(KENGUNTE), MALLATHAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 056 … RESPONDENTS
[By Sri S Rachaiah, HCGP, for R-1;
Ms B Sukanya Baliga, Advocate for
Sri B M Baliga, Advocate, for R-2]
CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CrPC
PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO 15143 OF 2017
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A) AND
506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT
NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ACMM, BENGALURU.
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The parties have filed an application under Section
482 read with Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, for compounding the offences, along with
a memo, producing the certified copy of the order sheet in
MC No 405 of 2017 and the certified copy of the
memorandum of understanding entered into between the
parties before the Bangalore Mediation Centre [BMC].
2. I have perused the said memorandum of settlement
arrived at between the parties in the BMC, which was
produced before the I Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Bengaluru in MC No 405 of 2017. On a careful
perusal of the same, it is seen that the parties have agreed
to compound the criminal case pending before the II
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in CC
No 15143 of 2017 or getting the same quashed before the
competent court of law.
4
3. In this petition, the petitioners have sought for
quashing of the proceedings in the said CC No 15143 of
2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and
506 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961.
4. Ms Sukanya Baliga, learned counsel for the second
respondent, who is present before the court, with all
responsibility and on instructions from the second
respondent, submits that the second respondent would
adhere to the terms mentioned in the memorandum of
understanding entered into between the parties before the
BMC. She also submits that the said memorandum has
also been accepted by the Family Court and granted a
decree of divorce in the aforesaid matrimonial case.
5. It is worth to mention here the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of GIAN SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB
[(2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein the Apex Court observed in
the following manner:
5
— “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.
But criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and predominantly 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 proceedings or continuation of
proceedings 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
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.”
6. Applying the above said guidelines to the facts of this
case, it is clear that the issue between the parties
essentially arises with regard to family dispute and
6
basically private and personal in nature. The parties have
successfully resolved their dispute and decided to lead a
happy life in future.
7. Under the above circumstances, in order to facilitate
the parties to lead a happy life, it is just and necessary to
allow this petition as prayed for. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The compromise petition filed by the parties is
perused. The submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties are accepted. The petition is allowed.
Consequently, all further proceedings in CC No 15143 of
2017, on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru are hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of the main petition, IA I of 2017
does not survive for consideration and the same is
disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*pjk
