IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.9322 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. DILEEP.D.R. S/O RAGHU D.V.
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 2. RAGHU.D.V.
S/O LATE D. VEERAKYATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 3. PRABHAMANI W/O RAGHU D.V.
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS OCC: HOUSE WIFE PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO 2164, SAMRUDDINILAYA 8TH MAIN, D-BLOCK, SHANKARNAGAR BENGALURU-560 092 4. DEEPTHI D.R.
W/O SANTOSH KUMAR. G AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO.25, ANUGRAHA 1ST CROSS, NMH LAYOUT PHASE ONE, BENGALURU-560 090 ... PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. K.A. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY-560 092 2. B.K. LAKSHMI D/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO 2164, SAMRUDDI NILAYA 8TH MAIN, D-BLOCK, SHANKARNAGAR BENGALURU-560 092 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SHRI. T.P. MOHARE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.9088/2016, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CMM, BANGALORE REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 504, 506, 323 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Sri Chandrashekara K.A., learned advocate for the petitioners, Sri S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP for the State and Shri T.P.Mohare, learned Advocate for respondent No.2.
2. Second respondent is the wife of first petitioner.
She has initiated criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of IPC against the petitioners. Second petitioner is father, third petitioner is mother and fourth petitioner is sister of the first petitioner.
3. Learned advocates for the petitioners and second respondent jointly submit that the parties have settled the dispute amicably. Accordingly, they have filed a compromise petition along with individual affidavits of petitioners and second respondent duly signed by them and their respective advocates. They pray that this petition be disposed of in terms of the settlement.
4. Petitioners and second respondent are present and identified by their respective advocates. Second respondent has no objection for quashing the proceedings in CC No.9088/2016. The parties admit the terms of settlement stated in the compromise petition. The same is lawful and hence accepted. The compromise petition reads as follows:
“COMPROMISE PETITION 1. The above petition has been filed by the petitioners named above with prayer to this Hon’ble Court be pleased quash all further proceedings in CC No. 9088/2016 pending on the file of the Hon’ble CMM Bangalore for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 506 & 323 r/w 34 IPC and 3 & 4 of D.P.
Act.,. It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to read the grounds urged in the memorandum petition along with this application to avoid repetition.
2. Marriage of the petitioner No1 and the Respondent No2 herein took place on 11/05/2014. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the father, mother and sister’s of the petitioner No.1 herein. There were some differences of opinion between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No.2 herein even for a trivial matter and there was basic incompatibility in their matrimonial life. The marriage is a failure one. At the instance of elders and well-wishers now they have settled their dispute amicably to have peaceful life, accordingly they reported a settlement in a petition viz., M.C.No.986/2016 on the file of the Hon’ble V Addl., Principal Family Judge at Bangalore, seeking a decree of divorce by mutual consent under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act 1955, which was allowed in terms of settlement entered between the parties before Mediation Centre, Bangalore and the petitioner No 1 herein paid a sum of Rs 13 lakhs Vide DD No 485271 dated 16/08/2018 towards permanent alimony in favor of the Respondent No 2 herein before the Hon’ble family court in M.C.No.986/2016 on the file of the Hon’ble V Addl., Principal Family Judge at Bangalore on 25/08/2018.
3. Further, one of the terms therein is that, the respondent No.2 shall co-operate for closure of the case viz., CC No.9088/2016 on the file of the learned CMM, Bangalore, which was instituted in here behest.
4. Since the offences alleged in the aforesaid case are not compoundable in nature, the only alternative remedy available to the petitioners and the Respondent No 2 herein is to invoke the inherent powers of this Hon’ble Court to secure the ends of justice.
5. The respondent No.2 on whose complaint the entire case is built up, in view of the settlement so arrived is not supporting the case of the prosecution and hence the changes of conviction of the petitioners are very bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue.
6. The Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled in various pronouncements that, the High Court exercising its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings in relation to matrimonial disputes, taking into consideration the special circumstances of the case and section 320 Cr.P.C., does not limit or affect the powers under section 480 Cr.P.C.
7. That in view of the special circumstances of the case as stated supra, it is absolutely necessary that, the proceedings in the case viz., CC No.9088/2016 on the file of the learned CMM, Bangalore, is required to be quashed to secure the ends of justice.
8. If this Hon’ble Court is not pleased to allow the petition, the petitioners and the respondent No.2 as well, will suffer irreparable loss, since the parties to the proceedings in particular the respondent No.2 have been presenting this application on their own will and volition.
WHEREFORE, the petitioners/accused Nos 1 to 4 and the respondent No.2 named above pray that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash all further proceedings in CC No. 9088/2016 pending on the file of the Hon’ble CMM Bangalore for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 506 & 323 r/w 34 IPC and 3 & 4 of D.P. Act., pending against the petitioners herein, to secure the ends of justice.”
5. In the circumstances, it is just and appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings and accordingly all proceedings in CC.No.9088/2016 pending on the file of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed.
6. Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Yn.
Sd/- JUDGE