IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRL.P. NO.6480/2017 C/W CRL.P. NO.3243/2017 W.P.NO.13811/2018 (GM-RES) CRL.P. NO.3242/2017 CRL.P. NO.6479/2017 IN CRL.P. NO.6480/2017 BETWEEN 1. SMT SRUTHI RAGHUNANDANA W/O RAGHUNANDANA VENKATAPATHY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 2. MADHUGIRI VENKATARAMU K S/O K SRINIVAS RAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 3. SMT CHANDRIKA B P W/O MADHUGIRI VENKATARAMU K AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 4. SMITHA K V D/O MADHUGIRI VENKATARAMU K AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT SRINIDHI I PARALLEL ROAD, JAYANAGARA WEST TUMAKURU-572 102 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI SRIKANTH.A, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA INDIRANAGARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 038 REP. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001 2. SRI S R VENKATAPATHY S/O E S RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT # 54, I MAIN, MICHAEL PALYA, NEW THIPPASANDRA II STAGE, BENGALURU-75 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R1, SRI V.RANJITH SHANKAR , ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE X ACMM, BANGALORE IN CR.NO.19/2017.
IN CRL.P. NO.3243/2017 BETWEEN 1. SMT. B.P. USHA W/O Y.V.HARISH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. VINDYA H D/O Y.V.HARISH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 3. Y. V. HARISH S/O LATE S VENKATARANGAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 1 TO 3 ARE PRESENTLY R/AT #33/3, EAST STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004.
4. SMT. B.P. SARASWATHI W/O LAKSHMAN MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT #680, 14TH CROSS, 31ST MAIN ROAD, I PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078.
(BY SRI K SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INDIRANAGARA POLICE STATION BENGALURU REP BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI RAGHUNANDANA VENKATAPATHY S/O S.R.VENKATAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT #54, I MAIN, MICHAEL PALYA, THIPPASANDRA, II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560075.
...PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R1, SRI V.RANJITH SHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED X ACMM, BANGALORE IN CR.NO.12/2017.
IN W.P.NO.13811/2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN MRS USHA VENKATAPATHY W/O MR S R VENKATAPATHY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT:
# 54, I MAIN ROAD, II STAGE MICHAEL PALYA, II STAGE I MAIN ROAD, NEW THIPPASANDRA POST, BANGALORE PINCODE: 560075 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI RANJITH SHANKER V, ADV.) AND 1. STATE BY INDIRANAGAR PS, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, PINCODE: 560001 2. MRS SRUTHI RAGHUNANDANA W/O RAGHUNANDANA VENKATAPATHY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS SRINIDHI, I PARALLEL ROAD, JAYANAGAR, (WEST), TUMKURU, PIN CODE: 572102 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH S.482 OF THE CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TO THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.74/2017 OF THE INDIRA NAGAR PS, PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE OF THE X ACMM, BANGALORE ETC.
IN CRL.P. NO.3242/2017 BETWEEN 1. SMT. B.P. USHA HAREESH W/O MR. HARISH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. VINDYA H D/O Y.V.HARISH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 3 . Y. V. HARISH S/O LATE S VENKATARANGAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 1 TO 3 ARE PRESENTLY R/AT #33/3 EAST STREET, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004.
4 . SMT. B.P. SARASWATHI W/O LAKSHMAN MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT #680, 14TH CROSS, 31ST MAIN ROAD, I PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 078.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI K SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INDIRANAGARA POLICE STATION BENGALURU REP BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI S.R. VENKATAPATHY S/O E.S.RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT #54, I MAIN, MICHAEL PALYA, NEW THIPPASANDRA II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 078.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R1, SRI V. RANJITH SHANKER, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED X ACMM, BANGALORE IN CR.NO.19/2017.
IN CRL.P. NO.6479/2017 BETWEEN 1. SMT SRUTHI RAGHUNANDANA W/O RAGHUNANDANA VENKATAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 2. MADHUGIRI VENKATARAMU K AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 3. SMT. CHANDRIKA B P W/O MADHUGIRI VENKATARAMU K AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 4. SMITHA K V D/O MADHUGIRI VENKATARAMU K AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT SRINIDHI, I PARALLEL ROAD, JAYANAGARA WEST, TUMAKURU-572102 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI SRIKANTH A, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INDIRANAGARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560038 REP BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001 2. SRI. RAGHUNANDANA VENKATAPATHY S/O S.R.VENKATAPATHY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.54, I MAIN, MICHAEL PALYA, THIPPASANDRA, II STAGE, BENGALURU-560075 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R1, SRI V.RANJITH SHANKAR, ADV.FOR R2.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF X A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN CRIME NO.12/2017.
THESE CRIMINAL PEITITONS AND WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER The parties are before the court. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. The first petitioner in Crl.P. No.6480/2017 is the wife of Sri. Raghunandana Venkatapathy and the complainant-second respondent is the father-in-law of the first petitioner. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.4 is the sister of the petitioner No.1.
2. The petitioners in the second petition i.e. Crl.P No.3243/2017 are the aunt, uncle and aunts daughter and another aunt of the first petitioner and the second respondent is the husband of the first petitioner.
3. The petitioner in the third petition i.e. W.P. No.13811/2018 is the wife of the second respondent in the first petition and the second respondent-complainant is the first petitioner in the first petition.
4. The petitioners in the fourth petition are the petitioners in the second petition. The petitioners in the fifth petition are the petitioners in the first petition.
5. The first petitioner and the father are present before the court and are identified by their respective counsels. The complainant-second respondent in Crl.P No.6480/2017 and his son in Crl.P 3243/2017 and the petitioner in W.P. No.13811/2018 are present. The petitioner in W.P. No.13811/2018 is none other than the wife of the complainant-second respondent in the first petition. Sri. Y.V. Harish who is the husband of Smt. B.P. Usha/Usha Hareesh in the Crl.P No.3242/2017 & Crl.P 3243/2017 is present before the court and identified by his counsel.
6. The parties have filed their affidavit, that is, the proof affidavits of settlement arrived at between the parties. The proof affidavit is filed by the second respondent-complainant in Crl.P. No.6480/2017 in Crl.P No.3242/2017. The affidavit of the second respondent-complainant in Crl.P No.6479/2017 and Crl.P No.3243/2017 is also filed into court. The second respondent-complainant in W.P. No.13811/2018 has also filed her affidavit. The parties have uniformly stated that in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the parties have resolved to withdraw the cases and counter cases.
7. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The first petitioner in Crl.P No.6480/2017 Sruthi Raghunandana and the second respondent in Crl.P No.3243/2017 Raghunandana had entered into a marriage alliance and the marriage was solemnized on 27.04.2016 at Gaviranga Kalyana Mantapa, Bypass Road, Ring Road, Gubbi Gate, Jayapura, Tumkur. On account of discord the relationship between the parties had soured which led to misunderstandings, resulting in lodging of complaints and counter complaints.
8. It is now submitted that the parties have resolved the differences and have resolved to part ways and that in this regard the parties have arrived at an understanding to file an application invoking the provisions of Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act to amicably dissolve the marriage solemnized on 27.04.2016. On a query, the parties have uniformly expressed their desire to withdraw the complaints and give a quietus to an acrimony subsisting between the parties.
9. In that view of the matter, this court has adverted to the contents of the complaint. The contents of the complaint do not disclose the commission of an offence of a heinous nature and the demonstration of the offence alleged depends on the sole say of the complainants. There being no other material to demonstrate the same and complainants having stepped forward to withdraw the complaint, no purpose would be served in further continuing the trial. The ends of justice would be served if a quietus could be given to the litigation otherwise resulting in loss of precious judicial time and which time could be allotted to other cases.
10. In that view of the matter and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.”
This court is of the considered opinion that the prayer of the petitioners requires to be considered positively. The petitions are allowed.
11. Accordingly, the following proceedings are quashed:-
1) Crime No.19/2017 arising out of P.C.R. No.50099/2017 pending on the file of X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru.
2) Crime No.12/2017 arising out of P.C.R. No.56213/2016 pending on the file of X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru.
3) Crime No.74/2017 of the Indira Nagar Police Station pending on the file of X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs* CT-HR