1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO.1102/2018
BETWEEN
K. G. RENUKAMBA
W/O. T. S. RAMESH,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
NO.111/8, MATRUSHREE NILAYA,
PIPELINE, 4TH CROSS,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
ANJANANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 091. … PETITIONER
(BY SRI. YADAVA KARKERA, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY POLICE-INSPECTOR,
WOMEN POLICE STATION,
TUMAKURU-572103
REP. BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
2. RAMESH. T. S.,
S/O. K. A. SIDDARAMANNA,
R/AT “AKSHAYA NILAYA”,
CIT HOSTEL ROAD,
BEHIND CHETHANA SCHOOL,
BATAWADI, TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU-572 103 … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SPP-II FOR R-1
NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
2
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.145/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, TUMKURU INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF THE FIR
DATED 17.09.2016 IN CR.NO.65/2016 MAKING
ND
ALLEGATION AGAINST THE 2 RESPONDENT U/S
498A,323,504 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned SPP-II, takes notice for respondent No.1 –
State. Notice to be issued to the respondent No.2 is
dispensed with.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned SPP-II for the respondent No.1 – State.
Perused the records.
3. It is seen from the records that on the basis of
the First Information Report lodged by the petitioner
herein, a case has been registered in Crime No.65/2016
on the file of the first respondent Police and after
investigation, a charge sheet has been filed u/ss.498A,
3
323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC in CC
No.145/2017.
4. It appears, the allegations made in the
complaint are made by the wife against her husband in
order to attract the above said provisions. The dispute
arose essentially with regard to the family dispute and
mis-understanding between the husband and wife.
Thereafter, it appears the second respondent has filed
M.C. Petition No.5844/2017 on the file of the I Addl.
Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, and the matter was
referred to Bangalore Mediation Centre and in the
Bangalore Mediation Centre, the parties have
compromised the matter and they agreed to live
together. At paragraph 9 of the Memorandum of
Settlement, it is categorically stated that –
“Both the parties undertake to develop a
good understanding and lead a happy
married life. Both the parties undertake to
discharge their duties against each other
effectually as dutiful husband and wife.”
5. In view of the above said facts and
circumstances of the case, when the husband and wife
4
intends to live happily and if this court order to continue
the Criminal Case, it would amount to abuse of process
of the court and in all probabilities, the complainant will
not support the case of the prosecution and it is a mere
waste of time.
6. In this regard, it is worth to note here 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.
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
5
– Such offences are not private in nature
and have a serious impact on society.”
7. On careful perusal of the factual aspects of the
case, I am of the opinion that this case also falls under
the categories mentioned in the guidelines of the
Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, I have no hesitation to
quash the proceedings as prayed for in the petition.
Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
The Petition is allowed. Consequently, all further
proceedings in CC No.145/2017 pending on the file of
the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge JMFC Court at
Tumakuru, for the offence punishable under sections
498A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC are hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PL*
