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.3530/2018
C/W
CRL.P. NOS.5219/2016, 6197/2016
IN CRL.P.NO.3530/2018
BETWEEN
SRI ASHWIN K R
S/O K A RAGHUNATH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.60, ANITHA NIVASA
2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS
S.P. NAIDU LAYOUT
R.M. NAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 016
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M. R., ADV.)
IN CRL.P. NO.5219/2016
BETWEEN
1. SMT ANITHA
W/O SRI VIDYA SAGAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO. 371, SECTOR 11
PANCHAKULA, HARIYANA STATE
2. SRI RAMAKUMAR
S/O LATE BHAKTAVATSALA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
3. SMT SUBHADRAMMA
W/O LATE BHAKTAVATSALA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
2
PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT NO.3/15, C TYPE
GUNATA VIHAR
RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX
J.C.NAGARA POST
BENGALURU – 560 006 … PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M. R., ADV.)
IN CRL.P. NO. 6197/2016
BETWEEN
1. SMT GAYATHRI
W/O RAGHUNATH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
2. SRI RAGHUNATH
S/O LATE AYODYARAMAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
3. CHANDRAMMA
D/O LATE AYODYARAMAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.60
ANITHA NIVAS
2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS
S.P.NAIDU LAYOUT
RAMAMURTHYNAGARA
BENGALURU-560 016 … PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M. R., ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
RAMAMURTHYNAGARA POLICE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BENGALURU – 560 001
3
2. SMT G. ASHWINI
W/O K. R. ASHWIN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO.60, ANITHA NIVAS
2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS
RAMAMURTHYNAGARA
BENGALURU – 560 016
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.1471,
BAZAR ROAD, MULABAGAL TOWN,
MULABAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT,-563131.
… RESPONDENTS
(COMMON IN ALL 3 PETITIONS)
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
MISS. MAMATHA P. N., ADV. FOR
SRI. G. PAPI REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 )
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3530/2018 IS FILED
U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.61044/2017
(CR.NO.389/2016) WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF
X ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
498(A), 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND
4 OF D.P. ACT.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5219/2016 IS FILED
U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT
AND FIR IN CR.NO.389/2016 WHICH IS PENDING ON
THE FILE OF X ACMM, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6197/2016 IS FILED
U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT
AND FIR IN CR. NO.389/2016 WHICH IS PENDING ON
THE FILE OF X A.C.M.M., MAYO HALL UNIT,
BANGALORE.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION ALONG WITH INTERLOCUTORY
4
APPLICATIONS FILED FOR STAY THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
All the three petitions are arising out of common
Crime No. 389/2016 of Ramamurthy Nagar Police
Station and also the FIR pending on the file of 10th
ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru. In Cr.No. 389/2016,
Accused No.1 is the petitioner herein. The Police have
submitted a charge sheet and the case is registered in
CC No.61044/2017 on the file of the 10th ACMM, Mayo
Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
2. The petitioner in Crl. P. No.3530/2018 is
arraigned as Accused No.1. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in
Crl. P.6197/2016 are arraigned as Accused Nos.2, 3
4, whereas the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 in Crl.P.
No.5219/2016 are arraigned as Accused Nos.5, 6 7 in
Crime No.389/2016 respectively on the file of
Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru.
3. Sri. G. Papireddy, Advocate, who is present
before the court, files vakalath for the 2nd respondent in
Crl.P. No.3830/2018 and in other cases, he has already
5
appearing for the 2nd respondent. All the petitioners
and their counsel and the 2nd respondent are also
present before the court. The 2nd respondent filed her
individual affidavit in all the above said petitions,
wherein it has been categorically stated that the parties
have compromised the matter and the 2nd respondent
has absolutely no objection to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners herein, who are the accused in
the FIR/Crime No.389/2016 and as well as in C.C.
No.61044/2017, pending on the file of 10th ACMM,
Bengaluru.
4. From the records it is seen that, Mr. Ashwin
K.R., the petitioner in Crl.P. No.3530/2018 is the
husband and the 2nd respondent-Smt. Ashwini G., is the
wife, and due to some matrimonial disputes and some
differences between the husband and wife, it appears
the 2nd respondent has lodged a complaint before
Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, which was registered
in Crime No.389/2016 for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 504, 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and
also under Section 3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
6
(for short, D.P. Act). All the aforesaid offences are not
punishable either with death or imprisonment for life.
The respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit stating that
the Divorce Petition between the parties is pending
before the Family Court and after disposal of all these
criminal cases, they will approach the Family Court for
appropriate orders in this regard.
5. In view of the compromise entered into
between the parties, Sri. K.R. Ashwin, the petitioner (
Husband) has made payment of Rs.2,00,000/- before
this court by way of Demand Draft No.717075 drawn on
City Bank in favour of the 2nd respondent-Wife :Smt.
Ashwini G. and she acknowledges the receipt of the
same.
6. At this stage, it is worth to note here a
decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Gian Singh
Vs. State of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10 SCC
303], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has given certain
guidelines with regard to quashing of the proceedings
7
whenever the parties have entered into compromise.
The relevant portion of the said decision reads thus:-
“Held -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, cannot be
quashed even though victim or victim’s family
and offender have settled the dispute – Such
offences are not private in nature and have a
serious impact on society.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
“But criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil
8
flavour stand on a different footing – Offences
arising from commercial financial, mercantile,
civil, partnership or like transactions or
offences arising out of matrimony relating to
dowry, etc. or family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in
nature and parties have resolved their entire
dispute, High Court may quash criminal
proceedings – High Court, in such cases, must
consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to interest of justice to continue with
the criminal proceeding or continuation of
criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement
and compromise between parties and whether
to secure ends of justice, it is appropriate the
criminal case it put to an end. If such
question(s) are answered in the affirmative,
High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction
to quash the criminal proceedings…”
7. The factual aspects of these cases reveals
that, the dispute between the parties is essentially a
matrimonial in nature. The parties have resolved their
dispute, as such, these cases also fall within the
categories of the guidelines issued by Hon’ble Apex
Court in the above said decision. Therefore, there is no
legal impediment to quash the proceedings against all
9
the petitioners herein, as prayed for. Hence, the
following order:-
ORDER
The petitions are allowed. Consequently,
all further investigation in Crime No. 389/2016
on the file of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station
and all proceedings in C.C. No.61044/2018 (in
Crl.P. No.3530/2018), now pending on the file
of the 10th ACMM, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru,
registered against the petitioners for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
504, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and Sections 3 4 of
the D.P. Act, are hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of these petitions, the
Interlocutory Applications filed for stay therein, do not
survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said
applications stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGR*
