SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri. R. Santhosh Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018

BEFORE

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

CRL.P. NO.10009/2017

BETWEEN

1. SRI. R. SANTHOSH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAMA MURTHY
RESIDING AT NO.55, 10TH CROSS,
2ND MAIN, CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU 560 004

2. SMT. SUGUNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
W/O LATE RAMA MURTHY,
RESIDING AT NO.352/1
ACSI HOSPITAL ROAD,
VAPSANDRA,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN AND DIST – 572 108

3. SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAMA MURTHY,
RESIDING AT NO.352/1
ACSI HOSPITAL ROAD,
VAPSANDRA,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN AND DIST- 572 108

4. SMT. MANJULA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
W/O SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY,
RESIDING AT NO.352/1
ACSI HOSPITAL ROAD, VAPSANDRA,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN AND DIST- 572108
2

5. SMT. SHOBHA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
W/O SRI. PRAKASH
RESIDING AT NO.82
HMT LAYOUT,
1ST BLOCK, VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU CITY – 560 004
… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. VENKATRAMANA K., ADV.)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY THE SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU

2. SMT. PUSHPALATHA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
W/O SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR,
RESIDING AT NO.89
SURVEYOR STREET,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560004
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1.
SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2013
AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.1628/2013 BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCES WHICH ARE MADE PENAL U/S 498A,504,506
R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION
ACT.
3

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

ORDER

Sri Raghavendra K., learned counsel files power for

respondent No.2 and also files the affidavit of respondent

No.2 along with the copy of the memorandum of

settlement entered into between the parties in MC

No.4361/2017.

2. Petitioner No.1 and second respondent are

present before the court. Both of them admit that they

have compromised the matter as per the memorandum of

settlement before the Principal Judge, Family Court,

Bengaluru, in MC No.4361/2017, wherein both the parties

have admitted that they will assist each other for quashing

of the entire proceedings in CC No.1628/2013 pending on

the file of the IV Addl. CMM, Bengaluru, for the offence

punishable under sections 498A, 506, 504 read with

Section 34 of IPC and also u/ss.3 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act.

4

3. On careful perusal of the entire materials on

record, there is no dispute between petitioner No.1 and

second respondent that they are the husband and wife and

subsequently, due to some family differences, the

respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioners

for the alleged offences. On the basis of which, the Police

have investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet

before the court and inturn the said case is now pending

before the IV Addl. ACMM, Bengaluru.

4. On the basis of the compromise entered into

between the parties, the Family Court i.e., the Principal

Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in MC No.4361/2017 has

granted a decree of divorce accepting the compromise

between the parties. Therefore, there is no legal

impediment to quash the proceedings as prayed kfor by

virtue of the compromise.

5. In this regard, it is worth to note here a decision

rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and

Another reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein the

Apex Court has held thus:-

5

“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 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.”

6. On perusal of the factual aspects of this case, this

case also falls within the category of the decision cited

supra. Under the above said circumstances, I pass the

following:

6

ORDER

The Petition is allowed. The Memorandum of

Settlement dated 11.1.2018 entered into between the

parties are hereby accepted. Consequently, all further

proceedings in CC No.1628/2013 pending on the file of the

IV Addl. CMM, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable

under section 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC

and Sections 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby

quashed.

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