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.9101/2017
BETWEEN

1. SRI SUJAN BATHALA
S/O BALAKRISHNAN BATHALA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

2. SRI BALAKRISHNAN BATHALA
S/O B SREERAMULU
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

3. SMT NIRMALA BATHALA
W/O BALAKRISHNAN BATHALA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

4. SRI RAMACHANDRA NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS

5. SMT RAJAMMA P
W/O SRI RAMACHANDRA NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT: 43604
MAJESTIC PRINCE PL
CHANTILLY, VA-20152
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. YESHU MISHRA, ADV.)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN
POLICE STATION
2

BANGALORE 560 004
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA BUILDING

2. SMT SNEHA VEMPARALA
D/O SHRI V MOHAN NAIDU
NO.533, VENKATADRI NILAYAM
3RD MAIN 6TH BLOCK
BSK 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU 560 085 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
R2- SERVED.)

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE IN CR.NO.3/2016 AND THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.20454/2016
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II A.C.M.M., BANGALORE
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/Ss. 120-B, 406, 498A, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SECs.3, 4 OF D.P ACT.

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

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The notice sent to Respondent No.2 is duly

served and she remained absent before the court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

before the court that, the parties have already entered

into compromise between themselves in MC
3

No.5034/2015 before the Principal Judge, Family Court,

Bengaluru and the parties have entered into

Memorandum of Settlement vide Agreement dated

28.10.2016 and the same was produced before the

family Court, Bengaluru, in MC 5034/2015 and the

Family Court vide order dated 28.10.2016, in presence

of the parties, has accepted the same, recorded the

compromise and granted decree of divorce dissolving

the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the 2nd

respondent herein. When the court has already

accepted the compromise in presence of the parties and

when the notice issued to the 2nd respondent was

already served, and in spite of service of notice, she

remained absent, in my opinion, there is no legal

impediment for this court to consider the said

Compromise Petition and quash the proceedings.

Further, it is noticed that, at Paragraph-4 of the

Memorandum of Settlement, it is categorically agreed

upon by both the parties that the 2nd respondent has

filed a complaint in PCR No.13385/2015 which

culminated in C.C. 20454/2016 against the petitioners,
4

which is pending on the file IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act ( for short, D.P. Act’).

4. On careful perusal of the Memorandum of

Settlement, it is clear that the marriage between

Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on

09.09.2015 at Shiva Vishnu Temple at Lanham,

Maryland, USA, as per Hindu rites and customs, and

they lived for some time as husband and wife. As there

arose some misunderstandings between them, it

appears the 2nd respondent has filed a criminal case

against the petitioner and his family members for the

above said offences. After some time, the parties have

realized their mistakes and entered into compromise

settling all their scores before the family court. In the

above circumstances, there is no legal impediment for

this court to quash the proceedings as prayed for.

5. At this stage, it is worth to note here a

decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Gian Singh
5

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
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

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. This case also falls under the categories of

the cases as per the guidelines given by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the said decision. In this case also, the
7

complaint lodged by the wife is arising out of

matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife, and

the same has been resolved between themselves.

Though the respondent remained absent, applying the

guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision

cited supra, this case also is considered for quashing of

the proceedings. Accordingly, the following order is

passed:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. Consequently,
the case in C.C. No.20454/2016 (arising out of
Crime No.3/2016 of Basavanagudi Women
Police Station) registered against the
petitioners for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A, 506, 120-B r/w. 149 of IPC
and Sections 3 4 of the D.P. Act, pending on
the file of the II Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru City,
and all further proceedings therein, sofaras the
petitioners concerned, are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR*