1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6345/2014
BETWEEN:
Sri Giridhar V. Nayak
S/o Vasanth J Nayak
Aged about 36 years
No.51, 1st Floor, Kalpavruksha,
4th Cross, 4th Main, N.R. Colony,
Bangalore-560 019.
…Petitioner
(By Sri Rameshchandra, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Represented by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. Smt. Radhika
W/o Giridhar V. Nayak
Aged about 32 years
No.13/1, 2nd Main, S.R.S. Road,
New Extension Peenya,
Bangalore-560 058.
…Respondents
(By Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, SPP-II for R1;
Sri N. Jaiprakash Rao, Advocate for R2 (Absent))
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C praying to allow this petition and quash
Annexures-A and A1, i.e., charge sheet and proceedings
against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.17873/2013
which was taken cognizance on 06.11.2013 before II
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Bengaluru as per Annexure-A1.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner’s counsel files a memo dated
9.1.2008 producing Mediation Agreement dated
29.10.2015 between the parties and also Order Sheet
in M.C.No.3866/2015. The petitioner and counsel
present before the Court. The respondent No.2 and her
counsel are remained absent.
2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner
and second respondent are husband and wife
respectively. Due to the matrimonial dispute it appears
respondent No.2 has filed a criminal case against the
husband for the offence under Section 498A and 506 of
3
IPC. The charge sheet has been laid against the
husband in C.C.No.17873/2013. In the meantime, the
husband has also filed a petition for divorce under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in
M.C.No.3866/2015. Both the parties were referred to
mediation and the parties have entered into a
memorandum of settlement before the Mediation Centre
and the memorandum of settlement was produced
before the Court and after accepting the said
memorandum of agreement between the parties, the Prl.
Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M.C.No.3866/2015
vide order dated 29.10.2015 accepting the compromise
petition, granted the decree of divorce in favour of the
petitioner. The family Court has recorded that on
29.10.2015 both the parties were present and the Court
has enquired into the matter and after hearing the
parties the Court was convinced that the settlement
entered into between the parties was voluntary one and
the parties have agreed to the terms and conditions
4
incorporated in the memorandum of settlement.
Therefore, the said settlement is valid and accepted by
the judicial Court.
3. In the said compromise petition at paragraph
12 the respondent-wife has agreed to withdraw the case
in C.C.No.17873/2013 for the above said offences and
she will co-operate for quashing of the criminal
proceedings in this petition before this Court.
4. In view of the above said facts and
circumstances, I do not find any strong reason to
dismiss the petition. The petition requires to be allowed
as prayed for.
5. In a decision reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 in the
case of GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND
ANOTHER, the Apex Court has laid down certain
guidelines under what circumstance the Court can
5
quash the criminal proceedings. The said guidelines are
as follows:
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Ss.482 and 320
– Relative scope – Inherent power of High Court
under S.482 to quash criminal proceedings
involving non-compoundable offences in view of
compromise arrived at between the parties –
Whether available – If so, then when may such
power be exercised – Social impact of crime in
question vis-à-vis its individual impact, as
decisive criterion for exercise of quashment power
in such cases – Guidelines for and limitations on
exercise of quashment power of High Court in
such cases, laid down – Whether S.320 creates a
bar/limits inherent power of High Court under
S.482, examined -Whether B.S.Joshi, (2003) 4
SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and
Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC 1 require
reconsideration.
– Held, power of High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding of FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is
distinct and different from power of a
criminal court of compounding offences
6
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.
6. The facts of this case also falls under the
categories as per the guidelines of the Apex Court.
Therefore, there is no legal impediment for quashing the
proceedings. Hence, the following
7
ORDER
The petition is allowed. Consequently, all further
proceedings in C.C.No.17873/2013 on the file of II
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore,
against the petitioner for the offences under Sections
498A and 506 of IPC are hereby stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ap*
