1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO. 7051/2017
BETWEEN
1. SRI.MANJUNATH,
S/O VENKATESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
2. SRI. GOVINDARAJU,
S/O VENAKTESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
3. SRI. KRISHNA NANDA,
S/O VENAKTESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
4. SMT. VIJAYA,
W/O GOVINDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
5. SMT. SUSHEELA,
W/O KRISHNA NANDA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO 519,
ERAPPA BUILDING,
RAMAMANDIRA ROAD,
KODIGEHALLI,
SAHAKAR NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU – 560 092 … PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. N. RAJAMMA, ADV. FOR
SRI. MANJUNATH G. KANDEKAR, ADV.)
2
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ROBERTSONPET POLICE,
K G F., KOLAR DISTRICT.
2. SMT. RAMAVATHI,
W/O MANJUNATH, D/O RAJU, R/AT
JAIN TEMPLE STREET AND
ANDERSONPET, K G F,
KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 125 … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1.
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE IN
CR.NO.116/2013 (C.C.NO.264/2014) FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES P/U/S 506,498A,504 OF IPC AND SEC.3 4
OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KOLAR.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ALONG
WITH IA NO.1/2017 FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Perused the records.
2. The second respondent is the wife of the first
petitioner. There arise some matrimonial dispute
between them and by virtue of the same, a complaint
came to be filed in FIR No.116/2013 for the offence
3
punishable under sections 498A, 504 and 506 of IPC
and also u/s.3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After
investigation, the Police have filed a charge sheet in CC
No.264/2014 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge
Addl. JMFC, Kolar. In the mean time, the husband has
also filed MC Petition for divorce in MC No.3074/2013 on
the file of the VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bengaluru, wherein the matter was referred to
Bangalore Mediation Centre and the parties have
amicably compromised the matter between themselves
and thereafter, Compromise Petition was placed before
the VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru,
and after considering the compromise entered into
between the parties, the Family Court has accepted the
same and decreed the petition disallowing the marriage
between the petitioner No.1 and the second respondent.
3. The second respondent is served with a notice
issued by this court and in spite of that she remained
absent.
4. As the Memorandum of Settlement has already
been accepted by the Family Court in MC No.3074/2013
4
and the contents of the Compromise Petition is not
disputed by the respondent herein, as she is not
appeared before the court in spite of service.
Therefore, considering the contents of the Compromise
Petition and as the Family Court has already accepted
the same, in my opinion, there is no legal impediment in
accepting the said Compromise Petition.
5. At paragraph 10 of the Compromise entered
into between the parties before the Bangalore Mediation
Centre, the respondent wife has agreed to co-operate
with the petitioner for quashing of the proceedings in CC
No.264/2014.
6. Under the above said circumstances, I am of
the opinion that the said compromise entered into
between the parties is a valid compromise, which has
already been accepted by the Family Court.
7. In this regard, it is worth to refer a decision
rendered in GiAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND
OTHER reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
“A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 –
Ss.482 and 320 – Relative scope – Inherent
5power 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.
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 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.
8. In view of the above said facts and
circumstances of the case, as this case also falls under
the category mentioned in the Hon’ble Apex Court’s
decision, there is no legal impediment for this Court to
quash the proceedings.
6
9. Keeping in view of 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, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed. Consequently, the
proceedings in CC No.264/2014 (arising out of Crime
No.116/2013 OF Andersonpet Police Station,
Robertsonpet Circle, KGF) on the file of the Principal
Civil Judge and Addl. JMFC, Kolar, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of the main petition, pending
consideration of IA No.1/2017 filed for stay, does not
survive and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PL*