Nagaraj & Others vs Police Inspector Ramamurthynagar Police Station & Others

K.S. Mudagal, J

Learned counsel for the petitioner serves the copy on the learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Therefore, office objection stood complied.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 appears virtually. Learned counsel for the petitioners present. Heard both side.

“Whether the proceedings in Crime No.261/2017 of Ramamurthy Nagar police station which are now pending in C.C.No.53271/2018 on the file

of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru against the petitioners amounts to the abuse of the process of the Court?†is the

question involved in this case.

Petitioners are accused Nos.4 to 7 in Crime No.261/2017 of Ramamurthy Nagar police station. Accused No.1 in the said case is the husband of

respondent No.2. The petitioners are the relatives of accused No.1. The marriage of accused No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on

10.02.2016 at Bengaluru. Respondent No.2 and accused No.1 had troubled marriage.

Respondent No.2 filed complaint before respondent No.1 â€" police in Crime No.261/2017 against the petitioners and accused Nos.1 to 3. Accused

Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of accused No.1. Respondent No.1 after investigation filed the charge sheet against the petitioners and the other accused

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

On taking cognizance, jurisdictional Magistrate has registered the same in C.C.No.53271/2018 and summoned the petitioners. Petitioners are

challenging the said proceedings on the ground that the matrimonial dispute between respondent No.2 and accused No.1 is cloaked into criminal case

to harass the petitioners.

Pending these proceedings, respondent No.2 filed M.C.No.2460/2017 against accused No.1 - Arun Kumar E.T., before the Principal Judge, Family

Court, Bengaluru for declaration of nullity of marriage.

Learned counsel for petitioners and respondent No.2 under the signature of respondent No.2 filed memo reporting that the parties have settled the

matter in M.C.No.2460/2017 and they have also produced the compromise petition and decree passed in M.C.No.2460/2017.

The said records show that the parties were referred to mediation in M.C.No.2460/2017. During mediation, parties arrived at a settlement and filed

the compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC on 22.02.2019. The said records further show that there were other proceedings also

between the parties namely M.C.No.5958/2017 filed by accused No.1 against respondent No.2 and O.S.No.4844/2017 between the mother of

respondent No.2 and the petitioners/party. All those matters are settled.

In para 7 of the compromise petition, respondent No.2 has agreed that she will co-operate for quashing the impugned proceedings. Recording the

same, the Trial Court has drawn the decree of dissolution of marriage.

From the aforesaid facts, it becomes clear that the matrimonial dispute was turned to the criminal case. In view of the compromise between the

parties, the proceedings against the petitioners in the impugned proceedings serve no purpose and that amounts to the abuse of the process of the

Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (2012)10 SCC 303 held that in such cases invoking inherent

power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court can quash the proceedings.

Having regard to the said judgment and facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in Crime

No.261/2017 of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station which are now pending in C.C.No.53271/2018 on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Bengaluru are hereby quashed.