1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO. 1308/2018
BETWEEN
1. MR. M. AUGUSTINE PAUL SAMUEL
@ AUGUSTINE PAUL M.,
S/O. DR. S. MOHANDAS,
NO. 7, VENKATARAAM NAGAR,
THIRU NAGAR, VELLORE-632 006
2. DR. S. MOHANDOOS,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O. LATE. SAMUEL,
3. FR. (MRS.) ALLI KIRUBA RANI,
W/O. DR. S.MOHANDOSS,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT
R/AT NO.7, 1ST STREET,
VENKATARAMAN NAGAR,
VELLORE – 632 006.
4. MRS. CHRISTINA PAULIN,
W/O ENOCH DANIEL,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT 3/4, 8TH STREET,
DEVI KARUMARIAMMAN NAGAR,
VELACHERY, CHENNAI 600042
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH GOKLANEY, ADV.
SRI. RAMESHA C. N., ADV.)
2
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
HALSOOR GATE WOMENS POLICE STATION,
BENGALUR-01
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
2. SMT. ANITHA B. S.,
W/O. AUGUSTINE PAUL SAMUEL
@ AUGUSTICE PAUL.M,
D/O. K. C. SELVAN,
NO. 27, ELIM SRIMATA BADAVANE,
SHARADAMBHA NAGAR, JALAHALLI,
BENGALURU 560013
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1.
SRI. A. M. SURYA PRAKASH, ADV. FOR R2.)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.12073/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE VI A.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU EMANATING OUT OF CR.NO.58/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri A.M. Suryaprakash, learned counsel files power
on behalf of respondent No.2.
2. Petitioner No.1 and his counsel, Respondent
No.2 and her counsel are present before the court.
3
Both the parties have filed a joint memo reporting
settlement between themselves. In view of the
settlement, the parties have already filed a divorce
petition with mutual consent before the competent court
at Chennai. The second respondent has no objection to
quash the proceedings in CC No.12073/2017 pending
before the VI Addl. CMM, Bengaluru.
3. Heard the parties present before the court and
their counsels. Both the parties admit that they have
executed a Joint Memo with free will.
4. The First Information Report registered in Crime
No.58/2016 of Halasurgate Women Police Station,
disclose that the petitioner and the second respondent
are respectively husband and wife and due to some
family differences, the second respondent has lodged a
complaint making allegations against the petitioners for
the offence punishable under sections 498A and 506 of
IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Now,
the matter has been compromised between themselves
and they have already moved the family court for their
divorce.
4
5. 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.”
6. On perusal of the factual aspects of this case, in
my opinion, this case also falls under the categories
mentioned in the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court
cited supra. Under the above said circumstances, when
the parties have resolved their entire dispute between
themselves, there is no legal impediment for this court
5
to quash the proceedings as prayed for. Therefore, the
Petition requires to be allowed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The Petition is allowed. The Joint Memo of the
first petitioner and the second respondent is hereby
accepted. Consequently, all further proceedings in CC
No.12073/2017 pending on the file of the VI Addl. CMM,
Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under sections
498A and 506 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PL*
