IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8055 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MANJUNATH, S/O V.NAGARAJAN, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 2. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O V.NAGARAJAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.42, 2ND CROSS, R.R.LAYOUT, VIJINAPURA, DOORVANINAGAR, BENGALURU-560016.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY COTTONPET POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU -560001.
2. KUM. AISHWARYA D/O LATE MANOHAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, NO.67, DR. T C M ROYAN ROAD, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560002.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.170/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 45TH ACMM AT BANGALORE REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 354 AND 420 OF IPC AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.
2. The second respondent is accompanied by her mother and identified by her counsel Sri.Srinivas V. It is submitted that an engagement ceremony of the first petitioner and the second respondent was held on 06.06.2019. That thereafter, the second petitioner desired to cancel the wedding arrangements on account of some misunderstandings. Being aggrieved, the second respondent lodged a complaint and the respondent – police have registered the FIR as Crime No.170/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 420 of IPC.
3. Today, the parties are present before the Court and have filed a joint affidavit dated 26.11.2019. On a query from the Court, the second respondent would submit that she desires to withdraw the complaint as the parties have negotiated an amicable settlement and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- has been paid by the petitioners to respondent No.2 and she admits the receipt of the same. The second respondent is accompanied by her mother who also affirms the same.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the record would not disclose any heinous crime.
5. This Court is of the opinion that the instant case is an appropriate case for this Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings and it does not in any manner derogate from upholding of public morality and if the petition is allowed, it would secure the ends of justice, as the parties have amicably resolved the differences that arose on account of acceptance of a matrimonial proposal and the subsequent breach of the same by the petitioners.
6. Hence, the petition is allowed.
Consequently, the FIR registered as Crime No.170/2019 on the file of 45th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered by the first respondent – police stands quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE GH