Karnataka High Court
Upendra B V @ Utkarsh vs R Narasimha Murthy on 4 February, 2013
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6253/2012
BETWEEN:
Upendra B.V. @ Utkarsh,
Aged 29 years,
S/o.B.R.Venkatesh Murthy,
No.40/A, 12th Main,
12th Cross, Srinagar,
Bangalore-560 050. ... Petitioner
[By Sri.Manjunath.B.R., Advocate]
AND:
1. R.Narasimha Murthy,
Aged 40 years,
S/o. Ramachandra Rao,
Residing at No.40, 12th Main,
12th Cross, Srinagar,
Bangalore-560 050.
2. State of Karnataka by
Mico layout Police,
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore-560 001. ... Respondents
[By Sri. T.Prakash, Advocate for R-1;
Sri.Satish.R.Girji, Government Pleader for R-2]
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
CR.P.C., praying to quash the FIR in Crime
:2:
No.622/2011 of Mico Layout Police Station, Bangalore
City which has been registered against the petitioner
pending on the file of the VI Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City.
This Criminal Petition coming for admission on
this day, the Court made the following: -
ORDER
In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought for quashing the complaint lodged by Respondent No.1 and the FIR registered thereon in Crime No. 622/2011 by MICO Lay-out police for the offence punishable under Section 497 of IPC and all further proceedings thereon.
2) Today, both the petitioner and the 1st respondent are present-in-person before the Court. Affidavit sworn to by the 1st respondent is filed stating that the matter has been settled before the family court through mediator and memorandum of settlement has been duly signed, wherein he has agreed to withdraw the complaint lodged by him, based on which the MICO Lay-out Police have registered the case in Crime :3: No.622/2011, therefore, he has no objection to quash the FIR registered by the 2nd respondent-police.
3) Perusal of the certified copy of the FIR indicates that though the aforesaid case said to have been registered on reference from the VI ACMM, the said case has been registered on the basis of the information lodged by the 1st respondent alleging the offence punishable under Section 497 of IPC.
4) Section 198 of Cr.P.C. bars the court from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter-XX of IPC, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. In the light of the same, on the basis of the information lodged before them, the police could not have registered the case for the offence punishable under Section 497 of IPC. Even if the police filed final report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., in the light of the provisions of Section 198 of Cr.P.C., the court cannot taken cognizance for the offence under Section 497 of IPC based on police report. :4:
5) It is noticed that the matrimonial dispute was between the 1st respondent herein and his wife. It is now reported that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a Memorandum of Settlement has been signed by them, wherein, the 1st respondent herein has agreed to withdraw the complaint lodged by him, on which the case in Crime No.622/2011 came to be registered by MICO Lay-out police.
6) In the light of the affidavit sworn to by the 1st respondent and the terms agreed to by him in the memorandum of settlement filed before the Family Court and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations made in the FIR predominantly relate to the matrimonial dispute which has been now amicably settled. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the investigation and the proceedings thereon. Even otherwise, the investigation by the police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 497 of IPC is without jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the petition is :5: allowed. The complaint lodged by the 1st respondent and the FIR registered thereon in Crime No.622/2011 of MICO Lay-out Police Station and all further proceedings thereon, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*