SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

K. G. Renukamba vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2018

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*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh