Karnataka High Court
Sri Mukund Ramaprasad vs State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2023
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
CRL.P No. 4474 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4474 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI MUKUND RAMAPRASAD
SON OF SRI H.R RAMPRASAD
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING ATNO.804
5TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560040.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. YATISH S - ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VARUN M R - ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by D K AND:
BHASKAR
Location: High 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Court of BY JNANABHARATHI POLICE STATION
Karnataka
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT U
BENGALURU-560056.
2. SMT. SHRUTHI ANTAPNAL
WIFE OF MR. MUKUND R
DAUGHTER OF LAKSHMIKANTH KULKARNI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.77
MATHRUKRIPA, 8TH BLOCK
NAGARABHAVI II STAGE
BANGALORE-5600072.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H. S SHANKAR - HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR - ADVOCAT FOR R-2)
-2-
CRL.P No. 4474 of 2023
CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.8792/2015 INCLUDING
THE FIR NO.369/2013 AND CHARGE SHEET PENDING BEFORE
THE HON'BLE IX-ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU FOR OFFENCE U/S 498A, 34 OF
IPC AND R/W SEC. 3, 4 OF THE D.P. ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel Shri Yathish appears before Court
physically and represents the learned counsel Shri Varun
M.R. who is on record for the petitioner. Learned HCGP for
the State Shri H.S. Shankar is present before Court
physically.
2. Learned counsel Shri Chandrashekar appears before
Court physically and he files vakalath for Respondent No.2 /
Shruthi. The petitioner namely Mukund Ramaprasad and
so also Respondent No.2 namely Shruthi ,are present before
Court physically.
3. In this matter, learned counsel for both the parties
have filed an application under Section 320(2)(8) read with
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. stating that the parties have
settled the dispute in terms of a settlement and hence seek
to compound the offences and to quash all further
CRL.P No. 4474 of 2023
proceedings in C.C.No.8792/2015 pending on the file of the
IX Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore, for offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 34 IPC read with Sections
3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. This application is appended with a joint affidavit
filed by Shri Mukund Rama Prasad who is arraigned as the
petitioner and so also Respondent No.2 / Smt. Shruthi.
The parties to this petition are present before Court
physically along with their respective counsel and submit
that they have arrived at a settlement of the issues between
themselves and seek that the Joint Affidavit filed by them
may be taken on record and the petition be disposed of in
terms of the said Joint Affidavit.
5. The present petition has been filed under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings
against the petitioner in C.C.No.8792/2015 for offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 34 of IPC besides Sections
3 and 4 of the DP Act. This criminal prosecution has been
initiated before the Court of the IX Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate at Bangalore. Paragraph 3 of the affidavit reveals
CRL.P No. 4474 of 2023
that the second deponent / Shruthi gave a complaint
against Deponent No.1 / Mukund Rama Prasad and
Respondent No.1 registered the case in FIR No.369/2013
against the petitioner and his parents. Subsequently,
investigation was taken up by the Investigating Officer and
after thorough investigation, charge-sheet was laid against
the accused before the Court having jurisdiction for the
offences stated supra. The aforesaid case is pending before
the IX Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore.
6. Paragraph 4 of the joint affidavit made by both the
parties indicates that the first deponent had filed a case in G
& WC Petition No.206/2018 under Sections 7 and 17 of the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1956 against the second
deponent. This matter was settled through a Joint
Compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC read with
Section 151 CPC before the I Addl Family Judge, Bangalore
by compromising the issues emerged between them.
Accordingly the matter ended in compromise between the
parties. A copy of the joint compromise petition is also
annexed for perusal.
CRL.P No. 4474 of 2023
7. In paragraph 5 of the joint affidavit, it is stated that
the second deponent had filed a Crl.Misc.Petition
No.171/2016 under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 23 of the POCSO Act against the first deponent
and his family members, which matter also has been settled
by both parties by filing a joint compromise petition. A copy
of the said order as well is produced along with the joint
memo.
8. Whereas in this joint affidavit appended to this
application, it is specifically stated that there is no coercion,
undue influence or force from anybody upon either the
petitioner or second respondent to file the said affidavit and
that the second deponent / Shruthi has willfully given her
consent to quash the case in C.C.No.8792/2015. Hence, by
the said joint affidavit filed, both the parties in this matter
who appear before Court physically state that since the
parties have arrived at a settlement, the offences be
compounded in accordance with Clause 320(2) and (8) of the
Cr.P.C.
CRL.P No. 4474 of 2023
9. Hence, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012 (10)
SCC 303), the proceedings initiated against the petitioner /
accused requires to be quashed 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 view is also supported in the cases
of NIKHIL MERCHANT vs. CBI (2008) 9 SCC 677 and in the
case of B.S. JOSHI vs. STATE OF HARYANA (2003) 4 SCC
675.
10. Therefore, keeping in view the ratio of the reliance
in the above mentioned cases and so also the dispute arising
CRL.P No. 4474 of 2023
between the parties having been settled, it is appropriate to
accept the joint affidavit and so also the petition requires to
be allowed in order to maintain harmonious relationship
between the parties, in future.
11. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the
proceedings in C.C.No.8792/2015 arising out of
Cr.No.369/2013 pending on the file of the IX Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore, for offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 34 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KS
