SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri. Harsha Vardhann Prakash … vs State Of Karnataka on 21 June, 2018

CRL.P.No.102713/2017

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102713/2017

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. HARSHA VARDHANN PRAKASH NAMBURI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O NAMBURI KOTESWARA RAO,
R/O: D-12, PHASE-1, NPCIL, KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
MALAPUR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581400,
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC OFFICER,
D EMPLOYEE ID NO.1625558,
NPCIL UNIT 1 AND 2,
KAIGA POWER GENERATING STATION,
KAIGA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581400.

2. NAMBURI KOESWARA RAO
AGE: 70 YEARS,
S/O. LATE DHARMAIAH,
R/AT: NO.2-583-A,
LAKSHMANA RAO PURAM,
COLLECTORS BUNGALOW CHILKALAPUDI POST,
MACHALIPATNAM-521002,
ANDHRA PRADESH.

3. JAYAMANI BHARATI
AGE: 67 YEARS,
W/O NAMBURI KOTESWARA RAO,
R/AT: NO.2-583-A,
LAKSHMANA RAO PURAM,
COLLECTORS BUNGALOW CHILKALAPUDI POST,
MACHALIPATNAM-521002,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SATISH G. RAIKAR AND SRI.SUBRAMANYAM.S,
ADVOCATE)
CRL.P.No.102713/2017

:2:

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
MALLAPURA POLICE STATION,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.

2. SMT.SANDHYA MARPATLA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
W/O. HARSHA VARDHAN,
PRAKASH NAMBURI,
R/O: FLAT NO.204,
USHA KIRAN APARTMENTS,
NO.25, HAUDIN ROAD, ULSOOR,
BENGALURU-560042.
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. M. V. V. RAMANNA H. R. KAMBIYAVAR, ADVS. FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET ANNEXURE A-
1 ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.235 OF 2012 (ANNEXURE-
C4) ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-II AT
KARWAR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
323, 498A READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND
4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961, AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners who are

accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in C.C.No.235/2012 on the file of

the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC-II at Karwar
CRL.P.No.102713/2017

:3:

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Court below’, for brevity),

seeking quashing of the said criminal case, which was the

result of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 herein for

the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A R/w.

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as

‘the D.P. Act’, for short).

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is

that, the present petitioner No.1 is the husband of

respondent No.2 herein, whose marriage was solemnized

on 02.02.2008. One week prior to the marriage, at the

demand of the petitioners herein, who are the husband

and in-laws of the complainant, a dowry of a sum of

`10,00,000/- was paid to them. At the time of marriage, a

gold weighing 391 grams in the form of ornaments and a

Maruti car, a site property and a flat, though was in the

name of the complainant, were all given as dowry. After

marriage, while the complainant was in her matrimonial
CRL.P.No.102713/2017

:4:

home, she was subjected to cruelty by the present

petitioners, who constantly were demanding her to get

more valuables and cash in the form of dowry and to

transfer immovable and movable properties in their name.

After investigation, respondent No.1 – police have

filed the charge sheet against the present petitioners

arraying them as accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively for

the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A R/w.

Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act.

The said case in C.C.No.235/2012 is pending in the Court

below. The accused therein have sought for quashing of

the entire proceedings in the said C.C.No.235/2012 by

filing this petition.

3. Though this petition is listed for admission

today, with the consent from both sides, the matter is

taken up for its final disposal.

4. The learned counsel from both sides including

the learned HCGP and the petitioner No.1 and respondent
CRL.P.No.102713/2017

:5:

No.2 in-person are present. Petitioner No.1 and

respondent No.2 are identified by their respective counsels

in the Court.

5. Both the learned counsels for petitioners and

respondent No.2 jointly made a submission that the

matter has been amicably settled between the parties and

that petitioner No.1 – husband and respondent No.2 – wife

have obtained divorce in M.C.No.583/2017 in the Court of

Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, by virtue of

settlement entered into between them in Mediation. They

further submitted that, as agreed to between the parties in

the Mediation, both sides have agreed to quash the

criminal proceedings under challenge now. The petitioner

No.1 husband has also agreed to pay a sum of

`8,00,000/- to the respondent No.2 herein, out of which

`4,00,000/- has already been paid and remaining

`4,00,000/- has also been acknowledged today by

respondent No.2.

CRL.P.No.102713/2017

:6:

In this regard, learned counsel for respondent No.2

has also filed a memo acknowledging the receipt of

`4,00,000/- by his client from petitioner No.1.

With the above submission, both sides pray for

quashing of C.C.No.235/2012 pending in the Court below.

6. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 submits

that, in view of the fact that both petitioners as well

respondent No.2 have, on their free will and keeping their

best interest in consideration, have settled the matter,

though the alleged offence punishable under Section

498(A) of the IPC is not compoundable, however, by virtue

of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi

and Another reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58, the criminal

case pending in the Court below be quashed disposing of

this petition.

7. In Jitendra RAghuvanshi and Others Vs.

Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, reported in (2013) 4
CRL.P.No.102713/2017

:7:

SCC 58, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in

paras 13, 14 and 15 as below:

“13. As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that
after filing of a complaint in respect of the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC, the
parties, in the instant case, arrived at a mutual
settlement and the complainant also has sworn an
affidavit supporting the stand of the appellants. That
was the position before the trial Court as well as
before the High Court in a petition filed under Section
482 of the Code. A perusal of the impugned order of
the High Court shows that because the mutual
settlement arrived at between the parties relate to
non-compoundable offence, the court proceeded on a
wrong premise that it cannot be compounded and
dismissed the petition filed under Section 482. A
perusal of the petition before the High Court shows
that the application filed by the appellants was not
for compounding of non-compoundable offences but
for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings.

14. The inherent powers of the High Court
under Section 482 of the Code are wide and
unfettered. In B.S. Joshi (supra), this Court has
upheld the powers of the High Court under Section
482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is
of a private nature and a compromise is entered into
CRL.P.No.102713/2017

:8:

between the parties who are willing to settle their
differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said
decision is directly applicable to the case on hand
and the High Court ought to have quashed the
criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement
arrived at.

15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to
encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial
disputes, particularly, when the same are on
considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-
compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes
and the court is satisfied that the parties have
settled the same amicably and without any
pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing
ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be
a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR,
complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.”

A reading of the entire judgment, more particularly,

the above paragraphs, clearly go to show that, if the Court

is convinced that, if the parties have settled their

matrimonial dispute amicably and the said settlement is a

genuine settlement, keeping the interest of both sides in

mind, in such a case, even if the offences are non-

CRL.P.No.102713/2017

:9:

compoundable and if they are related to matrimonial

dispute and if the Court has satisfied that the parties have

settled the same amicably and without any pressure, then

Sections 323 and 498A of the IPC would not be a bar to

exercise of the power of quashing of the FIR, complaint

and subsequent criminal proceedings.

8. In the instant case, an enquiry made by this

Court today with the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2,

who are present in-person, reveals that both of them have,

with their free will and without any pressure and with

mutual interest in consideration, have settled the matter.

In furtherance of their settlement before the Mediation

Centre, which has taken place on 26.08.2017, their

marriage also came to be dissolved in M.C.No.583/2017 in

the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court at

Bengaluru on 30.08.2017. The said Family Court also has

considered the settlement as the basis for granting the

decree of divorce. As such, it is more clear and convincing

that in their mutual interest the parties have settled the
CRL.P.No.102713/2017

: 10 :

matter and therefore, even though the offence alleged

under Section 498A of the IPC is not compoundable, but

for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, bar under

Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not come in the way in

recognizing the settlement entered into between the

parties and treating the matter as compounded and

consequently quashing the criminal proceedings under

challenge.

9. Accordingly, entire criminal proceedings in

C.C.No.235/2012 pending on the file of the Principal Civil

Judge and JMFC-II, at Karwar for the offences punishable

under Sections 323 and 498A R/w. Section 34 of the IPC

and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, is hereby quashed.

Accordingly, at the admission itself, the present

petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab

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
MyNation Times Magzine


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