IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7511 OF 2017 BETWEEN :
1. CHETHAN K.T S/O THAMMANNAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O 929, 17TH CROSS B.GROUP LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI II PHASE BANGALORE – 560 072 PERMANENT R/AT NO.584 KENCHAMBA NILAY 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR HASSAN – 573 201 2. K.M. THAMMANNAGOWDA S/O MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RETIRED DEPUTY TAHSILDAR 3. SUJATHA W/O THAMMANNAGOWDA K.M AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS HOUSE WIFE PETITIONER 2 AND 3 R/AT NO.584 KENCHAMBA NILAY 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR HASSAN – 573 201 4. HITHAN K.T S/O THAMMANNAGOWDA K.M AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O 729, 17TH CROSS NAGARABHAVI, II PHASE BANGALORE – 560 072 PERMANENT R/AT NO.584 KENCHAMBA NILAY 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR HASSAN – 573 201 5. K.J. JAYAPPA S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS AGRICULTURIST KERAGANAHALLY VILLAGE KODLIPET POST SOMAVERPET TALUK COORG DISTRICT – 571 231 (BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR N.R., ADV.,) AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVESHWARANAGAR POLICE BANGALORE CITY REPRESENTED BY THE ... PETITIONERS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 01 2. N.S. CHAITHRA D/O SRINIVASMURTHY NO.290, 2ND ‘H’ CROSS 3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE BASAVESHWARNAGAR BANGALORE – 560 079 (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. NAGARAJU, ADV., FOR R2) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.199/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ACMM, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 109, 494, 420, 406, 120B OF IPC AT ANNEXURE – A AND B TO THE PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner No.1 is present. Counsel for the petitioners is present. Counsel for respondent No.2 is present.
2. The counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondents submits that the parties have compromised the matter before the Bangalore Mediation Centre vide Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.10.2017. The said certified copy of the said settlement of memorandum is placed before the court. Wherein the respondent has accepted at paragraph No.9 that:
“she will withdraw the Crime No.119/2017 registered before the Basaveshwaranagar Police Station, Bengaluru under the grounds of Bigamy u/s 494, 420, 406, 509 and 120B of IPC against the petitioner”.
3. The said Memorandum of Settlement was placed before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore, in MC No.2662/2011. The said court has accepted the said Memorandum of Settlement/Agreement between the parties on 11.10.2017 wherein, the parties were present before the said court and ratified the Memorandum of settlement entered into between them by admitting the terms and conditions incorporated therein as true and correct.
4. Before this court also, the learned counsel for the second respondent confirms the said settlement between the parties before the Bangalore Mediation Center and also before the Family Court in MC No.2662/2011. He submits that he has no objection with regard to the compromise between the parties and pass appropriate orders.
5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, when before one of the judicial courts, the parties have appeared and the veracity of the memorandum of settlement has already been tested and accepted by the judicial court there is no need for this court to once again insist for the presence of the second respondent before this court when she ahs given the authority to her advocate to compromise the matter.
6. Under the above said circumstances, the petition deserves to be considered in view of the compromise.
7. It is worth to refer to a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 in the case of “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another” wherein it is held as under:
“-Thus, held, heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences omitted 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.
- But criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour standing 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 is 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.”
8. This case also essentially arising out of the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No.1 and the second respondent. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings in view of the above said decision. Hence the following:
ORDER The compromise between the parties is hereby accepted.
Petition is allowed.
Consequently, all further proceedings in connection with Crime NO.199/2017 pending on the file of Basaveshwaranagara Police Station and in turn, pending before the Fourth Additional CMM Court, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 454, 420, 406 and 120B is hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv