Back
SRI T NAGARAJA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAK A – Respondent
CRL.P 2583/2021
CRL.P.2583/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRL.P.No.2583/2021
BETWEEN:
1.
Sri T.Nagaraja,
Aged about 48 years,
S/o late Thimmaiah,
No.149, 15th Main,
Raghavendra Block,
Kalidhasa Layout,
Bengaluru 560050.
2.
Smt. Hanumakka,
Aged about 78 years,
W/o Late Thimmaiah,
No.149, 15th Main,
Raghavendra Block,
Kalidhasa Layout,
Bengaluru 560050.
3.
Smt. Jayalakshmi,
W/o Ramanna,
Aged about 53 years,
No.122, 6th Cross,
17th Main, Avalahalli,
Girinagara,
Bengaluru 560 026.
4.
Smt. Vijayalakshmi
W/o Vijaya Kumar,
Aged about 45 years,
No.27, 11th Main,
Shreenagara,
Bengaluru 560050.
& PETITIONERS
CRL.P.2583/2021
2
(By Sri Ramesh Chandra, Adv.)
AND:
1.
State of Karnataka,
Represented by State Public
Prosecutor, High Court Buildings,
Bangalore 560001
By Nandini Layout Police Station.
2.
Smt. Radha. K.,
Aged about 39 years,
No.15, 1st Main,
Nanjundeswara Nagara,
Nandini Layout,
Bengaluru 560 096.
& RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP for R1,
Sri V.B.Shivakumar, Adv. for R2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under 482 Cr.P.C., praying
to quash Annexure-A and A1 i.e., Charge Sheet against the
Petitioners
herein
C.C.No.15866/2012
which
was
taken
cognizance on 28.06.2012 before the II ACMM, Bangalore as
per Annexure - A1.
This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
1.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners,
learned HCGP for respondent no.1-State and the learned
Counsel for respondent no.2/complainant.
CRL.P.2583/2021
3
2.
The petitioners have approached this Court with a
prayer
to
quash
the
entire
proceedings
in
C.C.No.15866/2012 now pending before the Court of Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
3.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Counsel for respondent no.2/complainant, at the outset,
would submit that the dispute between the parties has
been already settled amicably and they have decided to
reside together. The complainant is the wife of petitioner
no.1 herein and pursuant to the settlement between the
parties, now the husband and wife are living together and
leading a happy married life. They submit that petitioner
no.1 and respondent no.2 have filed separate affidavits.
Paragraphs 2 & 3 of the affidavit of respondent
no.2/complainant reads as under:
"2) I submit that I am the wife of the
first accused. I have presented the complaint
against the petitioners herein and the police
have filed charge sheet for an alleged offence
punishable under Section 498(A) IPC & 3-4
CRL.P.2583/2021
4
of D.P.Act in CC.No.15866 of 2012 pending
in CMM Court.
3) I submit that I have settled dispute
with the petitioners and has solved the
difference ourselves and now we are residing
together for the welfare of the child and to
parenting the child. We decided to live
together for the future of our child."
4.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GIAN SINGH
VS STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS - (2012)10 SCC 303, has held
in paragraph 61 as under:
"61. The position that emerges from the
above discussion can be summarised thus:
the power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct
and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences
under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent
power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord
with the guideline engrafted in such power
viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In
CRL.P.2583/2021
5
what cases power to quash the criminal
proceeding or complaint or FIR may be
exercised where the offender and victim have
settled their dispute would depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case and no
catego
