Sri Shivaprasad T J vs The State Of Karnataka By
2021 Latest Caselaw 1577 Kant

                             :1:



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 2021

                          BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

         CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1768 OF 2018

BETWEEN
1.    Sri. Shivaprasad T.J
      S/o. T.R. Jayaramaiah
      Aged about 40 years
      R/at no.85, 1st Floor, 8th Cross
      Widia layout, Chandra layout
      Bengaluru - 560040.

2.    Sri. T. R. Jayaramaiah
      Son of late Ramakrishnaiah
      Aged about 66 years
      R/at no.85, 1st Floor, 8th Cross
      Widia layout, Chandra layout
      Bengaluru - 560040.

3.    Smt. Susheela
      Wife of T. R. Jayaramaiah
      Aged about 64 years
      R/at no.85, 1st Floor, 8th Cross
      Widia layout, Chandra layout
      Bengaluru - 560040.

4.    Smt. Chaithanya
      Wife of V. Ravichandra
      Aged about 34 years
      R/at no.85, 1st Floor, 8th Cross
      Widia layout, Chandra layout
      Bengaluru - 560040.                 ... Petitioners

      (By Sri. Murthy. D. L , Advocate)
                               :2:




AND
1.    The State of Karnataka by
      Chandra layout Station
      Represented by State Public Prosecutor
      High Court of Karnataka
      High Court building
      Bangalore - 560001.

2.    Smt. B. Seema
      W/o. T. J. Shivaprasad
      D/o. Bangarappa Agasa
      Aged about 37 years
      R/at, No.139, 7th Main
      2nd stage, KHB Colony
      Basaveshwaranagar
      Bengaluru - 79.                     ... Respondents

(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP
    & Sri. H. V. Ramachandra Rao Advocate
    for R-2 (absent))

     This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the
Criminal     Proceedings       in      C.C.No.1807/2017,
Compounding the Offences initiated by the Respondent
No.2 which is pending on the file of the VIII A.C.M.M.
Bangalore for the Offences Punishable Under Sections
498A, 342, 354 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3,4 and 6
of Dowry Prohibition Act.

      This Criminal Petition coming on for         Admission,
this day, the court made the following:

                         ORDER

Learned counsel Shri Murthy D.L. for the petitioners

/ accused is present before court physically but

respondent No.2 / Smt. B. Seema, W/o. T.J. Shivaprasad

is represented by the learned counsel Shri H.V.

Ramachandra Rao. But he is neither present before court

physically nor through video conferencing. But learned

HCGP for Respondent No.1 is present. However, keeping

in view Section 301 of the Cr.P.C., there is no independent

role in respect of complainant / author of the complaint,

and the same is only to a limited extent to participate in

the proceedings but not independently and only to assist

the learned HCGP for Respondent No.1 in this matter.

Accordingly, learned HCGP not only represents

Respondent No.1 / State but also Respondent No.2 / Smt.

B.Seema / complainant.

2. Petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 to 4 in

C.C.No.1807/2017 for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 342, 354 of IPC, besides Sections 3, 4 and

6 of the DP Act, 1961. Subsequent to recording an FIR in

Cr.No.346/2016, the I.O. of Chandra Layout P.S. has

taken up the case for investigation and thoroughly

investigated the case and so also collected the material

documents and in the charge-sheet cited the witnesses

CW-1 to CW-8. But the sum and substance of the charge-

sheet reveals that the marriage of CW-1 Seema B was

performed with the accused Shivaprasad T.J. as per the

customs prevailing in their society but due to dowry

harassment by her husband and other accused, she had

approached the Chandra Layout P.S. to file a complaint

against them. Accordingly, the case in Cr.No.346/2016

came to be registered for the offences reflected in the FIR

and so also offences reflected in the substance of the

charge-sheet laid by the I.O.

3. But Chandra Layout P.S. have registered crime

against the accused based upon the complaint of Smt. B.

Seema, for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 325,

342, 354 read with Section 34 of the IPC besides Sections

3 and 4 of the DP Act. But the father of Smt. B. Seema is

said to have committed suicide due to some harassment.

Therefore, she had filed a complaint before the Chandra

Layout P.S. inclusive of offences under Section 306 IPC.

Under this petition, the petitioners / accused are seeking

to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them

in C.C.No.1807/2017 which is pending before the Court of

the VIII ACMM, Bangalore.

Smt. Seema Shivaprasad is said to have initiated

matrimonial proceedings in M.C.No.5145/2016 against

her husband Shivaprasad T.J. arraigned as respondent.

This petition was filed by her under Section 13(1)(ia) of

Hindu Marriage Act against her husband seeking

dissolution of her marriage solemnized on 28.05.2015.

The marriage of the petitioner with the second respondent

was performed at 'Bhogha Nandishwara Swamy Temple',

Nandi Village, Chikkaballapura Taluk and District as per

the customs prevailing in their society. However, the

marriage has been dissolved by granting a decree of

divorce as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the

Bangalore Mediation Centre report. The memorandum of

settlement dated 2.6.2017 shall be part and parcel of the

decree. Accordingly, decree of divorce has been granted

by the Court of the I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court,

Bangalore, in M.C.No.5145/2015 vide Annexure-"E".

4. In respect of the memorandum of settlement

under Section 89 of the Cr.P.C. read with Rules 24 and 25

of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005,

the petitioner Smt. B. Seema and respondent T.J.

Shivaprasad said to be the spouses have subscribed their

signatures. The counsel for both parties have also

subscribed their signatures. But in arrival of a settlement

between them in terms at paragraph 5 it is specifically

stated that the case in C.C.No.1807/2017 arising out of

Cr.No.346/2016 registered by the Chandra Layout P.S. for

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 342 and 354 of

IPC, 1860 besides Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, in view

of arrival of a settlement between the parties the petitioner

/ Smt. Seema Shivaprasad is not inclined to prosecute the

said case and she is agreeable for the court to quash the

criminal proceedings to be filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

either to be filed jointly or individually before the High

Court of Karnataka. Thus, the present petition has been

filed before this court by the petitioners / accused seeking

to quash the criminal proceedings pending against them.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is present before

the court and facilitates the decree of divorce granted by

the Court of the I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court,

Bangalore, in M.C.No.5145/2016 vide Annexure-"E" and

so also the memorandum of settlement filed by the parties

in M.C.No.5145/2016 under Section 89 of the Cr.P.C.

read with relevant Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil

Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005. When the parties

have arrived at a settlement in terms of the settlement

specifically stated in the memorandum of settlement filed

by them subscribing their signatures inclusive of the

signature of the learned counsel for the parties, it is

deemed proper to consider and also it is in the interest of

both the parties and so also in order to maintain

harmonious relationship between the parties, it is deemed

proper to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the

judgment in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab

(2012 (10) SCC 303), in order to quash the proceedings

initiated against the petitioner / accused in view of the

settlement arrived at between the parties. In the said

judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had extensively

dealt with matters relating to Section 482 Cr.P.C. and

Section 320 Cr.P.C. relating to the inherent power under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in respect of

compoundable offences where compromise is arrived at

between the parties. It has been held in the said judgment

that criminal proceedings can be quashed by the Court, if

the Court is satisfied that the matter has been settled

between the parties amicably and the parties are

interested to restore peace and harmony between them.

The said power requires to be exercised in the present

petition. Therefore, keeping in view the ratio of the

reliance and so also the dispute arising between the

complainant and the accused having been settled before

the Family Court, it is appropriate to accept the memo

filed by the second respondent / complainant and so also

the petition requires to be allowed in order to maintain

harmonious relationship between the parties, in future.

6. Consequently, the memo filed by the second

respondent is hereby accepted and the petition is allowed

and the proceedings in C.C.No.1807/2017 arising out of

Cr.No.346/2016 is hereby quashed. The accused /

Petitioners 1 to 4 are hereby absolved of the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 342, 354 read with

section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KS