SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri Manjunath vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2018

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
5

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.

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*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh