1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2018

BEFORE

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

CRL.P. NO.3531/2018
BETWEEN

1. SRI J YATHIPRASAD
S/O JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

2. SMT K SARVAMANGALA
W/O JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

3. SRI JAYANNA
S/O LATE HONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

4. SMT SUGUNA
W/O NIRANJAN
D/O JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

5. SMT CHETHANA
W/O RAVHISHANKAR
D/O JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.50
12TH CROSS, RAJIV GANDHI
NAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE
BENGALURU – 560 091 … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR N. K., ADVOCATE)
2

AND

1. STATE BY KAMAKSHIPALYA
REP: BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001

2. SMT NETHRAVATHI B N
W/O J YATHIPRASAD
D/O NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT BEECHAGONDAHALLI
VEMAGAL POST, KOLAR
TALUK AND DIST – 563 101
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. CHETHAN DESAI, HCGP FOR R-1,
SRI. N. HARI PRASAD, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN
C.C.NO.18081/2015 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A
R/W 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF V
ACMM AT BENGALURU.

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

ORDER

1. Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for

Respondent No.1-State.

2. Sri. N. Hari Prasad, learned Advocate files

vakalath for Respondent No.2.

3

3. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 are

present before the court.

4. Both the parties have filed application for

recording compromise and for quashing of the

proceedings. Petitioner No.1 in view of the compromise

between the parties in MC No.4655/2014 made

payment of some amount to the 2nd respondent before

the 5th MMTC, Bengaluru, and the same was

acknowledged by Respondent No.2. RespondentNo.2

submits before the court that she has no objection to

quash the proceedings in C.C. No.18071/2015

registered by the petitioners herein for the offence

punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and also under

Sections 3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As could

be seen from the above circumstances, it is a

matrimonial dispute between parties, which gave rise

to filing of complaint by the 2nd respondent/wife against

the 1st respondent/husband and his family members

before the Police in Crime No. 38/2015 for the above

said offences.

4

5. 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

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
5

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

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…”

6

6. This is one such case, which falls under the

category of the cases as per the guidelines given by the

Hon’ble Apex Court. In this case, the complaint lodged

by the wife is arising out of matrimonial dispute

between the husband and wife, and the same has been

resolved between themselves. In order to enable the

parties to live happily in future, the court can exercise

powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the

proceedings in respect of the non-compoundable

offences also. Therefore, there is no legal impediment

to quash the proceedings as the factual aspects falls

within the guidelines laid down in the above said

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in terms of the joint

memo filed by the parties, before this court.

7. In the above circumstances, the petition is

allowed. Consequently, the case in C.C.

No.18071/2015 filed against the petitioners for the

offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC r/w

Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 4 of D.P.

Act, pending on the file of V Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru and all further
7

proceedings therein are hereby quashed, sofar as the

petitioners are concerned.

8. In view of disposal of this case, the

application-IA No.1/2018 filed for stay, does not survive

for consideration. Accordingly, the said application

stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR*