Karnataka High Court
Dr Srinidhi Manikarnike vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2014
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7559/2012
BETWEEN :
1. DR. SRINIDHI MANIKARNIKE,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O M.SAMPATH KUMARAN,
2. MR M.SAMPATHKUMARAN,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
S/O R.M.SRINIVASA IYENGAR,
3. MRS. JAYASHREE KUMARAN,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
W/O M.SAMPATHKUMARAN,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT APARTMENT NO.608,
"SHASHIKIRAN APARTMENTS",
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE -560055. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.M.SHYAM PRASAD, ADV.,)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY BASAVANAGUDI
WOMEN POLICE STATION,
BANSAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE -04.
-2-
2. MS. SUSHUMNA KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
D/O MALATHI B.S,
RESIDING AT NO.FLAT NO.101,
G.M., ELEGANCY, 1ST FLOOR,
3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
5TH STAGE,
BANGALORE -560098. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MELANE SEBASTIAN, ADV., FOR R2,
SRI KESHAVA MURTHY, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.17022/2011 AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A AND
SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Accused 1 to 3 in CC.No.17022/2011 pending on the file of II ACMM Court, Bangalore, have come up in this petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid proceeding.
2. Admittedly, CC.No.17022/2011 is initiated by the second respondent herein against the petitioners, who are her husband and in-laws respectively, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Wherein the case of complainant -3- is that her marriage with first petitioner is solemnized on 25.10.2009 in Sharada Prasada Kalyana Mantapa of Bangalore; after the marriage she started living in the matrimonial house with the accused at Malleshwaram and thereafter, herself and first petitioner moved to Rajarajeshwarinagar. In the meanwhile there was demand of dowry by first petitioner for purchase of a plot in his name, in addition to payment of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- which were demanded at the time marriage itself. Since she did not meet his demand, there was continuous assault on her by the first petitioner; and on 1.4.2010 the first petitioner left the matrimonial house and started to live with his parents and did not come back. Hence, she filed the complaint against the petitioners herein in Crime No.114/2010 with Basavanagudi Police, for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is seen that said complaint is registered as CC.No.17022/2011 on the file of II ACMM Court, Bangalore. Thereafter, on investigation the police have filed charge sheet against the accused for an offence punishable -4- under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. In the meanwhile, the second respondent-
complainant had also filed a petition against the first petitioner herein seeking decree of divorce in MC.No.1534/2011 on the file of Family Court, Bangalore, wherein the parties were referred for mediation. It is seen that in the said mediation the parties have settled their dispute amicably agreeing to dissolve their marriage with mutual consent. Accordingly, a memorandum of agreement under Section 89 of the Cr.PC., r/w Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005, in MC.No.1588/2011 was filed, wherein under one of the clause, the second respondent had agreed to withdraw the aforesaid criminal proceeding. In that view of the matter, the petitioners have come up in this petition seeking quashing of the same.
4. In this proceeding, the first petitioner is present before the Court personally. The second respondent is represented by her General Power of Attorney holder (GPA for short) and mother, Smt.Malathi. The copy of GPA, that is filed in to the -5- Court, is compared with the original, which is brought by her and GPA holder is identified by her photographs, which is seen in the original of the GPA. She is also identified by the first petitioner as well as her counsel. She has affixed her signature to the order sheet. So also the first petitioner. So far as second and third petitioners are concerned, it is stated that they are not keeping good health and therefore, an application is filed on their behalf seeking exemption from personal appearance. After going through the exemption application, being satisfied with the averments made therein, the application is taken on record and petitioners 2 and 3 are exempted from personal appearance.
5. In this proceeding, though the parties have settled their dispute amicably, the same cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the offences alleged are non compoundable in nature. However, in the light of judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Gian Singh -vs- State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein their lordships having observed that in a matter where the offence punishable is with reference to a matrimonial dispute between the parties and/or financial differences, though the offences alleged are non -6- compoundable in nature, the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 can quash the said proceeding. In the light of aforesaid judgment, the settlement arrived at between the parties is accepted.
6. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed. The proceeding in CC.No.17022/2011 pending on the file of II ACMM Court, Bangalore, for an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd/-