SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri. Sachin Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

BEFORE

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

CRL.P. NO.3197/2018
BETWEEN

1. SRI SACHIN SHETTY
S/O PAPARAMA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

2. SRI PAPARAMA SHETTY
S/O BALAKRISHNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

3. SMT LEELAVATHI SHETTY
W/O PAPARAMA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

4. SMT SWAPNA SHETTY
W/O MAHENDRA SHETTY
C/O PAPARAMA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT PADAVU NIVASA
SHAKTHINAGARA
MANGALURU TALUK – 575 004
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADV.)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
MUDBIDRI POLICE STATION
MUDBIDRI, REP. BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU 560 001
2

2. SMT SWATHI SHETTY
D/O GANGADHARA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT D.NO.2-238
CHAITHRA NIVAS
NEAR SEEMA MANZIL
BELVAI, MANGALURU -575 003
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADV. FOR R2.)

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.91/2017
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
MUDBIDRI FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss. 498A, 452, 323,
504 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4
OF C.P. ACT.

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ALONG
WITH IA NO.1/2018 FOR STAY THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioner No.2 and Respondent No.2 are present

before the Court. Sri.Hareesh Bhandary T., Advocate

files power for Respondent no.2 herein.

2. The parties on both sides have filed a

Compromise Petition before this court by way of a joint

memo and in support of the same, the 2nd respondent

has filed an affidavit.

3

3. On careful perusal of the entire materials on

record it is noticed that, the case pertains to a

matrimonial dispute between the parties. There is no

dispute with regard to the factual aspects that the 1st

petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent is the

wife and their marriage was performed on 15.11.2011

and they started living together. Due to some

misunderstandings in the family the 2nd respondent has

filed a complaint in Crime No.309/2016 before the

Mudabidri Police for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A, 109, 506, 448, 504 of IPC and also

under Section 3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for

short ‘D.P. Act’) r/w. 34 of IPC. The Police after

thorough investigation, submitted a charge sheet in

C.C. No.91/2017, now pending on the file of the Civil

Judge and JMFC, Mudabidre for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A, 109, 506, 448, 504 r/w. 34 of

IPC and Sections 3 4 of the D.P. Act .

4. The above factual aspects disclose that, the

matter is essentially a matrimonial dispute between the

parties. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of
4

the case, at this stage, it is worth to note here a

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Gian

Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10

SCC 303], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has given

certain guidelines with regard to quashing of the

proceedings whenever the parties have entered into

compromise. The relevant portion of the said decision

reads thus:-

“Held -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, cannot be
5

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.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

“But criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil

flavour stand on a different footing – Offences
arising from commercial financial, mercantile,
civil, partnership or like transactions or
offences arising out of matrimony relating to
dowry, etc. or family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in
nature and parties have resolved their entire
dispute, High Court may quash criminal
proceedings – High Court, in such cases, must
consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to interest of justice to continue with
the criminal proceeding or continuation of
criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement
and compromise between parties and whether
to secure ends of justice, it is appropriate the
criminal case it put to an end. If such
question(s) are answered in the affirmative,
High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction
to quash the criminal proceedings…”

6

5. On careful perusal of the factual aspects

and also the affidavit filed before this court in support

of the joint memo, it is clear that the parties have

settled their disputes among themselves and resolved

their conflicts amongst themselves. It is also narrated

therein that, petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 have

filed a petition for Divorce under Section 13(b) of the

Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court at

Mangaluru.

6. The above case falls within the guidelines of

the Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra. Hence, in order to

facilitate the parties to lead their life happily in future, it

is just and necessary to quash the criminal proceedings.

Hence, the following order is passed:-

ORDER

The petition is allowed. The Compromise
Petition filed by Petitioner No.1 and
Respondent No.2 and, also the affidavit filed by
the 2nd respondent are accepted.

Consequently, the case in C.C. No.91/2017
(arising out of Crime No.309/2016 of
Moodabidre Police Station) registered against
the petitioners for the offence punishable
7

under Section 498-A, 452, 323, 504, 506 and
r/w. 34 of IPC and Sections 3 4 of the D.P.
Act, pending on the file of the Civil Judge and
JMFC, Mudabidre, and all further proceedings
therein, sofaras the petitioners concerned, are
hereby quashed.

In view of disposal of this case, the application-IA

No.1/2018 filed for stay, does not survive for

consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands

disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR*

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation