CHETHAN K.T S/O THAMMANNAGOWDA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Petitioner No.1 is present. Counsel for the petitioners is

present. Counsel for respondent No.2 is present.

The counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for

the respondents submits that the parties have compromised

the matter before the Bangalore Mediation Centre vide

Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.10.2017. The said

certified copy of the said settlement of memorandum is placed

before the court. Wherein the respondent has accepted at

paragraph No.9 that:

"she will withdraw the Crime No.119/2017 registered before the Basaveshwaranagar Police Station, Bengaluru under the grounds of Bigamy u/s 494, 420, 406, 509 and 120B of IPC against the petitioner".

The said Memorandum of Settlement was placed

before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court at

Bangalore, in MC No.2662/2011. The said court has

accepted the said Memorandum of Settlement/Agreement

between the parties on 11.10.2017 wherein, the parties were

present before the said court and ratified the Memorandum of

settlement entered into between them by admitting the terms

and conditions incorporated therein as true and correct.

Before this court also, the learned counsel for the

second respondent confirms the said settlement between the

parties before the Bangalore Mediation Center and also before

the Family Court in MC No.2662/2011. He submits that he

has no objection with regard to the compromise between the

parties and pass appropriate orders.

In view of the above said facts and circumstances

of the case, when before one of the judicial courts, the parties

have appeared and the veracity of the memorandum of

settlement has already been tested and accepted by the

judicial court there is no need for this court to once again

insist for the presence of the second respondent before this

court when she ahs given the authority to her advocate to

compromise the matter.

Under the above said circumstances, the petition

deserves to be considered in view of the compromise.

It is worth to refer to a decision of Hon''ble Apex

Court reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 in the case of "Gian

Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another" wherein it is held

as under:

"-Thus, held, heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences omitted by public servants while working in their capacity as public servants, cannot be quashed even though victim or victim''s family and offender have settled the dispute - Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

- But criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour standing on a different footing - Offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc, or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute, High Court may quash criminal proceedings - High

Court, in such cases, must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between parties and whether to secure ends of justice, it is appropriate the criminal case is put to an end - if such question (s) are answered in the affirmative, High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."

This case also essentially arising out of the

matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No.1 and the

second respondent. Therefore, there is no legal impediment

to quash the proceedings in view of the above said decision.

Hence the following:

ORDER

The compromise between the parties is hereby

accepted.

Petition is allowed.

Consequently, all further proceedings in

connection with Crime NO.199/2017 pending on

the file of Basaveshwaranagara Police Station and

in turn, pending before the Fourth Additional

CMM Court, Bangalore for the offences punishable

under Sections 109, 454, 420, 406 and 120B is

hereby quashed.