SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mallikarjunaradhya M vs State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018

BEFORE

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

CRL.P. NO.7396/2015

BETWEEN

1. MALLIKARJUNARADHYA M.,
S/O MAHESHARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT ASARE, NO. 27/22,
1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
PAPAYYA GARDEN,
GANESHA MANDIRA WARD,
BANAGIRI NAGARA,
BENGALURU – 560 085.

2. MAHESHARADHYA,
S/O BASAVARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

3. H. N. GAYATHRI,
W/O MAHESHARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT “SHIVANI”, NO. MIG1/19,
KHB COLONY, 3RD PHASE,
KALKUNIKE, HUNUSUR TOWN,
MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 105.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. C. ANANTHA KUMAR, ADV.)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE
STATION BENGALURU CITY-560 072.
2

2. DEVIKA BHANDARE,
W/O MALLIKARJUNARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 13, 4TH CROSS,
ANUBHAVA NAGARA,
NAGARABAVI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 072. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1.
SRI. T. MOHANDAS SHETTY, ADV. FOR R2.[ABSENT])

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE F.I.R. REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT No.1 POLICE IN THEIR CRIME No.457/2015
FOR OFFENCES P/U/S – 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION
ACT 1961, SECTION 3(1)(xi) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT 1989, SECTION 66A OF INFORMATION
OF TECHNOLOGY ACT-2008 AND UNDER SECTION 498A
OF I.P.C. AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS PENDING ON THE
FILE OF XVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE(SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT 1989 AT BENGALURU.

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The Petitioners’ counsel present. The learned counsel

for the petitioners has filed a Memo dated 22.2.2018

reporting the Settlement entered into between the first

petitioner and the second respondent u/s.89 of CPC read

with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure

(Mediation) Rules, 2005, in MC No.556/2017.
3

2. On 22.2.2018, when the case was posted,

respondent No.2 and her counsel remained absent.

Therefore, the case is posted today for passing an

appropriate order, in order to provide opportunity to

Respondent No.2

3. Even today, the respondent No.2 and her counsel

remained absent and there is no representation.

4. On perusal of the Memorandum of Settlement

entered into between the parties dated 2.8.2017 filed

before the II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court in MC

No.556/2017 at paragraph 5, the respondent herein has

categorically admitted that,

“She has no intention to prosecute the said
case against the respondent and his parents.
The petitioner undertakes to co-operate and
appear before the Hon’ble Courts for
closing/quashing of the aforesaid cases. The
respondent hereby undertakes to appear
before the Hon’ble High Court at the time of
hearing of the said proceedings”.

5. In view of the above said Memorandum of

Settlement filed before the II Addl. Principal Judge, Family
4

Court, Bengaluru, in MC No.556/2017, the parties have

accepted the contents of the same and the court has

granted a decree of dissolution of marriage between the

first petitioner and the second respondent. When a Court

in the presence of the parties, after making enquiry,

accepted the said compromise petition, in my opinion,

there is no legal impediment to accept the same and to

pass an appropriate order.

6. On careful perusal of the entire materials on

record, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship

between the first petitioner and the second respondent.

The second respondent has filed a complaint due to the

family differences against the petitioners making

allegations of ill-treatment and harassment and on the said

basis of the said complaint, a case in Crime No.457/2015

is registered by Chandra Layout Police Station, for the

offence punishable under sections 498A of IPC and

Sections 3 4 of DP Act and also u/ss.3(1)(xi) of

SC/ST(PA) Act and also u/s.66(A) of the Information

Technology Act, 2008, but only filed charge sheet u/s.498A

of IPC and Sections 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
5

Therefore, he requests this court to quash the proceedings

against those offences are concerned.

7. On the basis of the above said facts and

circumstances of the case, 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 Hon’ble 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.”

In view of the same, as the facts and circumstances of this

case exactly falls under the category of cases as per the

decision cited supra, there is no legal impediment to quash
6

the proceedings so far as the said offences are concerned

as prayed by the learned counsel before this Court

Accordingly, the Petition is allowed. The

Memorandum of Settlement dated 2.8.2017 entered into

between the first petitioner and the second respondent

before the II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court,

Bengaluru, is hereby accepted. Consequently, the

proceedings in Crime No.457/2015 of Chandra Layout

Police Station pending on the file of the XVII Addl. City

Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for SC/ST (PA) Act,

1989), Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under

sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, sofar as these petitioners are concerned

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