IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2599/2018 BETWEEN:
1. SRI SAIRAJU L R S/O L A RAJ BABU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 2. SMT JYOTHI @ SAI JYOTHI W/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 3. SMT VANI W/O BHAVANI SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 4. SRI DILIP @ DILIP KUMAR S/O L G CHAKRAVATHY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.138, PARIJATHA STREET VISHWANATHA LAYOUT BANGALORE – 36. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D S MALI PATIL, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE BY K R PURAM POLICE STATION BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE.
2. SMT NALINAKSHI W/O SAIRAJU L R AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS NO.183, PARIJATHA STREET KASHI VISWANATHA LAYOUT K R PURAM BANGALORE – 36. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT K PL YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R.1, SRI RAMESH D, ADV. FOR R.2 (VK FILED IN COURT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.06.2017 IN C.C.NO.53957/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF X ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Today in the morning session it was ordered as under:
“Registry is hereby directed to show the name of the contesting respondents/counsel, if any”.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners before completion of morning session requested for taking up the matter for final disposal in view of the fact that parties are prepared for settlement among themselves. Thus, matter is taken up in the afternoon session.
3. Mr.Ramesh D, learned counsel files vakalath for respondent No.2.
4. Petitioners have sought for the following relief:
“Wherefore, the petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in Cri.No.65/16 in C.C.No.53957/2017 pending on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in the interest of justice”.
5. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were married on 30.09.2012. There were certain domestic issues among the family members like alleged to have harassed respondent No.2 in respect of demanding dowry so also physically abusing respondent No.2. In this backdrop, respondent No.2 filed a complaint for the offence under Section 498A read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and complaint was registered on 01.02.2016. Consequently, C.C.No.53957/2017 in Crime No.65/2016 was proceeded. Thus, petitioners have questioned the validity of the entire proceedings in Crime No.65/2016 in C.C.No.53957/2017 on the file of the X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, parties like respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 have amicably settled their score and are living together at the behest of elderly members and well-wishers of the family. To give effect to the amicable settlement, joint affidavit has been filed by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 to the extent of quashing of proceedings in Crime No.65/2016 in C.C.No.53957/2017 pending on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. In the application it is stated that there is no coercion, undue influence, pressure from any person. Thus, they have entered into compromise. In view of the application and joint affidavit, matter is required to be considered for quashing of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners on behalf of respondent No.2.
Counsel for parties have identified their respective parties.
6. Even though, offences are heinous in nature, compromise among family members is permissible in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in GIAN SINGH vs STATE OF PUBJAB & ANR. reported in AIR 2012 SC 303 read with THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH vs LAXMI NARAYAN AND OTHERS reported in 2019(5) SCC 688. Accordingly, proceedings in Crime NBo.65/2016 in C.C.No.53957/2017 pending on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is set-aside and petition stands allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Brn