1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2092 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.PRADEEP TALAN
S/O SUKHPAL SINGH
AGED 35 YEARS
R/A BUDHAKA VILLAGE, VAINA
TAPPLE POST
ALIGARH ALIGARH
UTTAR PRADESH – 202 165
2. SUKHPAL SINGH
FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED 70 YEARS
R/A BUDHAKA VILLAGE, VAINA
TAPPLE POST
ALIGARH ALIGARH
UTTAR PRADESH – 202 165
3. SMT.RAJENDRI,
W/O SUKHPAL SINGH
AGED 65 YEARS
R/A BUDHAKA VILLAGE, VAINA
TAPPLE POST
ALIGARH ALIGARH
UTTAR PRADESH – 202 165
4. SRI.SANDEEP
S/O SUKHPAL SINGH
AGED 33 YEARS
R/A BUDHAKA VILLAGE, VAINA
TAPPLE POST
ALIGARH ALIGARH
UTTAR PRADESH – 202 165
2
5. DEEPAK
S/O SUKHPAL SINGH
AGED 32 YEARS
R/A BUDHAKA VILLAGE, VAINA
TAPPLE POST
ALIGARH ALIGARH
UTTAR PRADESH – 202 165
6. SRI.MONU
S/O SUKHPAL SINGH
AGED 25 YEARS
R/A BUDHAKA VILLAGE, VAINA
TAPPLE POST
ALIGARH ALIGARH
UTTAR PRADESH – 202 165 … PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.VINOD KUMAR M., ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY SHO ALL WOMEN
POLICE STATION
HALASURU GATE SUB DIVISION
BANGALORE
REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE – 560 001
2. SMT.ARCHANA
W/O PRADEEP TALAN
AGED 31 YEARS
NO.15, NANDINI NILAYA
GANAGAMMA GUDI
JALAHALLI
BANGALORE – 560 013 … RESPONDENTS
(SRI.S.RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1
SRI.MADHUSUDHANA N., ADV. FOR SMT.T.R.RAJESHWARI, ADV.
FOR R2)
—
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the FIR in Cr.No.134/2014 of
3
Halsur Gate Women P.S. pending on the file of VI ACMM,
Bangalore.
This Petition coming on for Admission this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as
well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. The petitioners have sought for quashing of the
entire investigation in the FIR in Crime No.134/2014
which is according to the learned counsel for the
petitioners culminated in C.C.No.9589/2016 pending on
the file of 6th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends
that the respondent No.2 herein is the wife of petitioner
No.1. There was some matrimonial dispute between
themselves and the same has been compromised
between the parties in M.C.No.110/2016 on the file of
the Family Court Judge at Bulandshahar, wherein the
4
parties have entered into compromise between
themselves and by virtue of the compromise, the Court
has granted the decree of divorce to the parties under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent
No.2 is represented by her counsel Sri.Madhusudhana.N
appearing for the learned counsel Smt.T.R.Rajeshwari
and he submits that inspite of his efforts he was not
able to get the party before the Court. However, there
is no dispute raised with regard to the matrimonial
dispute being resulted by way of divorce decree in
Bulandshahar Court in M.C.No.110/2016, after
compromise.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
produced the certified copy of the judgment in the said
case i.e. in M.C.No.110/2016 which is in vernacular
Hindi language. The translated version of the judgment
in English is also produced before the Court wherein the
learned Judge, in the said case, has categorically
observed that, the 2nd respondent herein Archana and
5
the 1st respondent Pradeep Kumar have filed their
affidavits in support of their compromise petition i.e.
mutual consent petition filed before the Court. It is
submitted by both the parties particularly the 2nd
respondent in the affidavit that their marriage took
place on 06.06.2014 as per the Hindu rituals and they
were staying separately from 10.07.2014 and order for
divorce was requested on the basis of mutual consent
and she has no objection in issuing the decree for
divorce. Smt.Archana has submitted the certified copy
of order sheet in C.C.No.9589/2016 in the Court of 6th
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and also
submitted the certified copy of the order dated
16.11.2016 passed by the said Court in which the 1st
party has stated that the petitioner has filed divorce
petition on mutual consent under Section 13B.
5. It is however observed in the said judgment
that, the husband and wife have entered into an
agreement for staying separately and also as per the
6
agreement Archana would receive a sum of
`12,00,000/- and withdraw the case in Crime
No.134/2014 for the offences under Sections 498A and
506 of IPC and she has no objection to grant divorce.
Therefore, the Court, recording the above said
compromise between the parties, granted the divorce
decree vide judgment dated 02.12.2016.
6. There is no reason to disbelieve the said
compromise between the parties infact recorded by a
competent judicial Court. Merely because the 2nd
respondent personally did not appear before this Court,
when the judgment of the Court in Bulandshahar as
noted above is accepted, there is no reason to
disbelieve the same.
7. In the above said circumstances, holding that
the parties have already compromised the matter, it is
just and necessary to quash the proceedings as prayed
for. Hence, I pass the following
7
ORDER
The petition is allowed. Consequently, the case in
C.C.No.9589/2016 arising out of FIR No.134/2014 on
the file of the 6th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru and also further proceedings therein for the
offences under Section 498A, 504 and 506 of IPC and
also Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act insofar as the
petitioners are concerned, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
