Souvik Bose and Others vs The State of Karnataka and Smt. Prokreeti Bose

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—In this petition filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C. No. 2646/2011 on the file of the Additional C.J.M., Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, have sought for quashing the prosecution launched against them in the said case for the offences punishable u/s 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short "D.P. Act") inter alia on the ground that, subsequent to police filing the charge sheet, the matrimonial dispute between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent, who is the de facto complainant before the police, has been amicably settled and pursuant to the said settlement, the marriage between them has been dissolved by means of a decree of divorce in M.C. No. 514/2013 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, which was the petition filed u/s 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and that as per the terms of the agreement, the 2nd respondent does not wish to pursue the prosecution launched against these petitioners pursuant to the report lodged by her before the police. The petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent are present in person with their counsels.

Today, a copy of the Memorandum of Settlement entered into between them before the Bangalore Mediation Center, to which the dispute between them was referred to for mediation, is produced. Both petitioner No. 1 as well as Respondent No. 2 have filed affidavits sworn to by them reiterating the settlement between them. As per the terms of the settlement, the 1st petitioner tendered a Demand Draft for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) drawn in favour of the 2nd respondent, the receipt of which is acknowledged by Respondent No. 2.

Perusal of the evidence available on record indicates that the matrimonial dispute between the 1st petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was the cause for the Respondent No. 2 filing a report before the jurisdictional police, based on which, the police registered the case and after investigation laid the charge sheet against the petitioners.

Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are shown to be the relatives of the 1st petitioner. From the statements made by Respondent No. 2 in the affidavit as well as from the contents of Memorandum of Settlement, it is clear that the matrimonial dispute between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent has been amicably settled and acting on such settlement, the Family Court has ordered dissolution of marriage between them by a decree of divorce.

In the light of the said development, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution launched against the petitioners. The continuance of the prosecution, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would be abuse of process of the Court and it would result in waste of precious public time of the Court. It would also result in great embarrassment and harassment to the parties. In this view of the matter, I am convinced that it is a fit case for exercising inherent power saved u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash the prosecution launched against the petitioners. In the result, the petition is allowed. The prosecution launched against the petitioners in C.C. No. 2646/2011 on the file of the Additional C.J.M., Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, is hereby quashed.