SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt Vinoda vs State Of Karnataka on 10 July, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2018

BEFORE

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

CRL.P. NO.6998/2017
BETWEEN

SMT VINODA
AGED 39 YEARS
D/O HARISHCHANDRA K U
W/O NAVEEN KUMAR CHAUHAN
R/AT NO.444, FLAT NO.102
8TH MAIN, 4TH “A” CROSS
HRBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU … PETITIONER
(BY MISS. APARNA RAMESH, ADV. FOR
SRI. VAIBAV IYENGAR, ADV.)

AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HALASURU GATE POLICE
BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY PP

2. SRI NAVEEN KUMAR CHAUHAN @
NAVEEN KUMAR V
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O LATE VISHWANATH RAO
WORKING AT LOGICA PVT LTD
CGI GROUP COMPANY
DIVYASHREE TECHNOPOLIS
124-125, YEMLUR POST
OPPOSITE AIRPORT ROAD
BENGALURU-560 03.

3. AMBIKA RAO
W/O LATE VISHWANATH RAO
AGE 79 YEARS, ADDRESS NO 226
8 A MAIN, 1ST BLOCK HRBR LAYOUT
KALYANAGAR, BENGALURU
2

4. SHIPA RAO
AGED 34 YEARS,
D/O LATE:VISHWNATH RAO,
RESIDING AT BENGALURU.
5. RAVI KUMAR
S/O LATE VISHWANATH RAO
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
ADDRESS NO 226 8 A MAIN
1ST BLOCK HRBR LAYOUT
KALYANAGAR, BENGALURU

6. SUNIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LATE VISHWANATH RAO
ADDRESS NO.226 8 A MAIN
1 BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT
KALYANAGAR, BENGALURU

7. RAGHAVENDRA GURU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O LATE VISHWANATH RAO
ADDRESS NO 226 8 A MAIN
I BLOCK HRBR LAYOUT
KALYANAGAR, BENGALURU

8. THARANATH
S/O MAHADEVA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
ADDRESS MADHAV THARA
VIDYANAGAR, KULLI, MANGALURU

9. YAMUNA
W/O TARANATH
AGED 59 YEARS
ADDRESS MADHAV THARA
VIDYANAGAR, KULLI, MANGALURU
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. JAGADISH H. T., ADV.)
3

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.8313/2008 BEFORE THE VI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT NRUPATHUNGA
ROAD, BENGALURU FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 3 AND 4 OF
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 AND SEC.498A OF IPC

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

ORDER

The petitioner and respondent Nos.2 5 are present

before the court along with their respective counsels.

Other respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 9 are said to be the

relatives of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 and the

petitioner are the husband and wife.

2. It appears, the petitioner and the second

respondent have lived for some time as husband and wife

happily and due to some matrimonial differences, the

petitioner has filed the complaint, which came to be

registered in FIR No.28/2007 for the alleged offences

under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. After investigation, the Police have

submitted a charge sheet in CC No.8313/2008 before the

VI Addl. CMM, Bengaluru, for the above said offences.
4

3. During the pendency of the said proceedings, it

appears the parties have also approached the Family Court

for appropriate relief. The VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family

Court, Bengaluru, has referred the case for Mediation to

explore the possibility of settlement. The parties have

entered into an agreement before the Mediation Centre by

way of Memorandum of Settlement. The said document is

produced before the court as per Annexure-E dated

8.8.2017. The said settlement deed discloses that, the

parties have resolved their disputes and particularly at

paragraph 6, they have agreed to co-operate with each

other for quashing of a criminal case in CC No.8313/2008

apart from entering into other terms of the compromise.

The parties who are present before the court also filed a

Memo stating that they have settled the matter before the

Mediation Centre and the court can rely upon the said

document and pass appropriate order.

4. As the matrimonial disputes have been resolved

between the parties and the offences alleged in CC

No.8313/2008 are not serious in nature and they also
5

arising out of domestic differences between the parties,

there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings.

5. In view of the decision rendered in Gian Singh

Vs. State of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10 SCC

303], 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.

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 – Such offences are
6

not private in nature and have a serious impact
on society.”

6. In view of the above said facts and circumstances

of the case, as this case also falls under the categories of

cases as mentioned in the above decision. Keeping in view

the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this court has

applied its mind to the factual matrix of this case and

found that the dispute is basically a private and personal in

nature, and the parties have resolved their entire conflict

between themselves, there is no legal impediment to

quash the proceedings. Hence, the Memorandum of

Settlement entered into between the parties before the V

Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court Bengaluru in Misc.

No.122/2013 is taken on record.

7. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent No.2 that, in view of the

terms between the parties, today, before this court,

respondent No.2 is making payment of Rs.5 lakhs to the

petitioner by way of DD No.717139 dated 10.7.2018 of

CITI bank drawn in favour of the petitioner herein. The
7

petitioner who is present before the court acknowledges

the receipt of the said DD.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

Consequently, all further proceedings in CC No.8313/2008

(arising out of FIR No.28/2007) on the file of the VI

Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru, for the alleged offences,

in so far as respondent Nos.2 to 9 are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PL*

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation