Karnataka High Court Prasanth Ballal vs State Of Karnataka By on 13 March, 2014Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6646/2013
S/O SUBBA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 578, 11TH B MAIN ROAD,
B SECTOR, YELAHANKA UPA NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560064 … PETITIONER (By SRI : VISHNUMURTHY, ADV)
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN P S,
BANGALORE. 560 001
2. SMT VIDHYA JAGATHAP,
W/O PRASANTH BALLAL,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT 478, 11TH B MAIN ROAD,
YELAHANKA UPA NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560064. … RESPONDENTS (By SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 SRI.M.ANAND KUMAR, ADV FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.35851/2011 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE C.M.M., BANGALORE. THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Accused in CC.No.35851/2011 on the file of Court of CMM, Bangalore, has come up in this petition seeking quashing of proceeding initiated for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of IPC.
2. It is seen that subsequent to filing of criminal complaint the parties decided to resolve the dispute between themselves and together filed a petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage between them, which was in MC.No.2481/2013 on the file of III Addl.Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. It is stated that in said proceeding mediation is conducted, wherein a memorandum of settlement that is arrived at between the parties under Section 89 of CPC r/w Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005, is recorded. -3-
Accordingly, marriage between the parties is dissolved. In the settlement that is arrived at between the parties it is stated that petitioner husband agreed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and complainant, second respondent agreed to accept the same for herself and also on behalf of their minor child. In the said settlement it is also agreed between the parties that wife shall withdraw all the allegations made against her husband, which has resulted in filing of criminal case in CC.No.35851/2011.
3. The petitioner, second respondent and their child Miss. HIranmayi are present before the court. A joint memo is filed by petitioner and second respondent stating that in terms of settlement arrived at between them MC is disposed of dissolving the marriage and the entire money that is required to be paid by petitioner is paid in favour of second respondent, which she has accepted for herself and also on behalf of their minor child. The joint memo is taken on record.
4. In this proceeding, since the offences alleged are of the nature of non compoundable, in normal circumstance settlement is not permissible. However, in the light of -4-
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Gian Singh -vs- State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it is observed that the dispute between the parties if it is referable to matrimonial or financial dispute and if the parties have come to a settlement between themselves, it is open to the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.PC to quash the proceeding.
5. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid judgment, in exercise of powers vested in this Court under Section 482 of CR.PC, the criminal complaint registered in CC.No.35851/2011 as against petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 of IPC is quashed. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed. Sd/-