1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO. 8877/2017
BETWEEN
SRI PRAMODH KUMAR A V
S/O VENKATESH N
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 2,
MUNESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD,
AMRUTHAHALLI SHANKARANAGARA POST,
BENGALURU – 560092
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH CHANDRA S N., ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY AMRUTHAHALLI
POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE 560 092
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BANGALORE-01
2. SMT. D SHEETAL
W/O PRAMODH KUMAR A V
D/O K DEVENDRA NAIDU,
AGED 24 YEARS
# 29, WEST ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET,
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU – 560 004
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.RACHAIH-HCGP FOR R1
AND SRI.MOHAMED KHAN ADV. FOR R2)
2
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR BEARING CRIME NO.43/2017 AND
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE WITH
C.C.NO.25016/2017, WHICH IS REGISTERED BY
AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri Mohammad Khan, learned counsel, undertakes
to file vakalath for respondent No.2. He is permitted to
file vakalath within one week from today, in the office.
2. The petitioner and his counsel, respondent No.2
and her counsel are present before the court.
3. The respondent No.2, who is present before the
court submit that, herself and petitioner have entered
into a Memorandum of Settlement u/s.89 of CPC read
with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure
(Mediation) Rules, 2005 in MC No.1604/2017 on the file
of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, on
24.11.2017 and the said compromise was accepted by
3
the Family Court and granted the decree of divorce as
prayed for by the parties.
4. In the Memorandum of Settlement, it is
specifically mentioned at paragraph 6 that, the
petitioner and respondent would assist themselves in
getting the proceedings in CC No.25016/2017 pending
on the file of the CMM Court, Bengaluru, filed against
the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under
section 498A of IPC is quashed .
5. It appears, the petitioner and second
respondent being the husband and wife, have settled
their dispute amicably between themselves and hence,
there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the
proceedings as prayed for.
6. At this stage, it is worth to note here a decision
rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein the Apex
Court has held thus:-
“Power of High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
4exercise 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 while working
in their capacity as public servants, cannot
be 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.”
7. It is also worth to note here the subsequent
decision rendered in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi
and others -vs- Babita Raghuvanshi and another
reported in [(2013) 4 SCC 58], wherein the Apex Court,
particularly referring to the matrimonial disputes, has
5
laid down a law that the court can exercise powers
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to quash the
proceedings where exclusively they are pertaining to
matrimonial disputes, which reads as follows:-
“The inherent powers of the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.PC are wide and
unfettered. It is trite to state that the
power under Section 482 should be
exercised sparingly and with circumspection
only when the Court is convinced on the
basis of material on record, that allowing
the proceedings to continue would be an
abuse of process of court or that the ends of
justice require that the proceedings ought to
be quashed. Exercise of such power would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case and it has to be exercised in
appropriate cases in order to do real and
substantial justice for the administration of
which alone the courts exist. Thus, the High
Court in exercise of its inherent powers can
quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or
complaint in appropriate cases in order to
meet the ends of justice and Section 320
Cr.PC does not limit or affect the powers of
the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC.
6
Consequently, 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, it
is held that for the purpose of securing ends
of justice, Section 320 Cr.PC would not be a
bar to the exercise of power of quashing of
IR, complaint or the subsequent criminal
proceedings. The Institution of marriage
occupies an important place and it has an
important role to play in the society.
Therefore, every effort should be made in
the interest of the individuals in order to
enable them to settle down in life and live
peacefully. If the parties ponder over their
defaults and terminate their disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law, in order to
do complete justice in the matrimonial
matters, the courts should be less hesitant
in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction.
It is the duty of the courts to encourage
genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes
and Section 482 Cr.PC enables the High
Court and Article 142 of the Constitution
enables the Supreme Court to pass such
orders.
7
In the present case, the appellants (the
husband and his relatives, accused under
Sections 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and
Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961) had not sought compounding of the
offences. They had approached the High
Court under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing
of the criminal proceedings. The High Court
ought to have quashed the criminal
proceedings in question by accepting the
settlement arrived at by the parties
concerned.”
8. This case also falls under the categories
mentioned in the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision.
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 as the
parties have resolved their entire conflict between
themselves, there is no legal impediment for this Court
to quash the proceedings.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Consequently, the proceedings in MC No.1604/2017
pending on the file of the V Additional Principal Judge
8
Family Court, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A of IPC is hereby quashed.
Consequently, all further proceedings in CC
No.25016/2017 pending on the file of the CMM Court,
Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PL*