Smt. S R Shruthi vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 1441 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.1727/2020
BETWEEN:

SMT. S R SHRUTHI
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
D/O. V S RAMESH
C/O KODANDARAMA
No.16, HAMSANANDA
2ND CROSS, SRIRAMA LAYOUT
PUTTENAHALLI, J P NAGAR VII PHASE
BANGALORE-560078.
                                         ... PETITIONER
         (BY SRI. MADUSUDHAN ADIGA B, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BOMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
       REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
       HIGH COURT COMPLEX
       DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BANGALORE-560001.

2.     SRI RAGHURAM K BELURE
       AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
       S/O KRISHNAMURTHY APARTMENT
       B 008, 1ST A CROSS, I MAIN
       SUPREME RESIDENCY LAYOUT
       KODICHIKKANAHALLI
       BENGALURU-5660076.          ...      RESPONDENTS

             (BY SRI K S ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1
                                2



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.655/2016
AND CONSEQUENT CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.23912/2017
FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT POLICE U/S.498-A OF IPC
AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT R/W SEC.34 AND PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel appearing for the respondent No1-State.

2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

praying this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.655/2016 and

consequent charge sheet in C.C.No.23912/2017 filed by the first

respondent police u/s.498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP act

R/w sec.34 pending on the file of the Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate Bengaluru.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that after the

marriage, the petitioner was staying with respondent No.2 for a

short period of 5 months and thereafter, a complaint was filed

against this respondent No.2 herein and others and the police

have investigated the case and filed charge sheet. Petitioner

herein also filed petition under Section 12, 18, 19(2), 20, 22 of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which is

numbered as Crl.Misc.No.238/2016. It is also case of the

petitioner that respondent No.2 has also filed petition in MC

No.5577/2017 and the matter was settled and divorce was also

granted. The parties have entered into agreement of settlement

before the mediation and respondent No.2 has paid permanent

alimony of Rs.7 lakh to this petitioner. In terms of condition No.7

of the settlement, the parties have to approach the Court and

seek for quashing of the charge sheet proceedings. The parents

of respondent No.2 have filed a petition before this Court under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing of the proceedings as

against them and the said petition was numbed as

Crl.P.No.2559/2018 and quashed the proceedings against the

petitioner and this matter has listed for Admission and directed

the petitioner's counsel to place the records with regard to

settlement arrived between the parties and hence, MC

No.5577/2017 placed before this Court and in terms of the

settlement condition No.7 it was agreed to withdraw

C.C.No.23912/2017 which is subject matter in this petition.

4. Having perused the settlement arrived between the

parties and also this Court has quashed the proceedings in

Crl.P.No.2559/2018, without notice to respondent No.2, this

Court also can quash the proceedings against respondent No.2

Considering the material placed on record. Respondent No.2 was

also party to the settlement arrived between the parties in MC

No.5577/2017 and also signed the settlement.

5. Having taken note of the settlement arrived between

the parties, this Court already quashed the proceedings in

respect of in-laws and also in view of judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab &

Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, it is held that if the

dispute between the parties with regard to matrimonial case, the

Court can compound the offence.

6. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

following:-

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The proceedings initiated against

respondent No.2 in FIR in Crime No.655/2016 for

the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC

and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP act R/w sec.34 pending on

the file of the Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate Bengaluru is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nms