Sri Shreyas Vs State by Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING PENDING ON THE FILE OF PCJ (SR.DIV.) CJM, MANDYA DISTRICT IN C.C.NO.149/2021, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504, 506, 323, 324, 114, 498A, 307, 201 OF IPC.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:16917 CRL.P No. 3084 of 2024

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC is filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.149/2022 pending before the Court of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, arising out of Crime No.77/2020 registered by Mandya West Police Station, Mandya, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 323, 324, 114, 498A, 307, 201 IPC.

¶25

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel

¶27

for respondent no.2 jointly submit that the dispute between the parties who are close relatives has been amicably settled at the intervention of well-wishers and elders of both the parties. In view of the said settlement, the parties intend to give a quietus to the pending criminal case to live happily in future. The victim in the present case is the wife of the petitioner and the first informant is the mother-in-law of the petitioner. They

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16917 CRL.P No. 3084 of 2024

¶29

accordingly pray to allow the petition and quash the impugned criminal proceedings.

¶30

Learned Addl. SPP has brought to the notice of this Court that charge sheet has been filed for non-compoundable offence. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶31

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that initially first information was registered by Mandya West Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 506, 498A, 354B, 34 IPC against the petitioner and two others. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. During the pendency of this petition, the dispute between the parties has been settled. Petitioner is the husband of Smt. Keerthan who is the injured victim in the present case. The first informant is the mother of Keerthan and mother-in-law of the petitioner. Petitioner and respondent no.2 - first informant have filed a joint memo supported with their joint affidavit stating that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and they have submitted that they intend to give quietus to the pending criminal proceedings. The joint memo which is

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:16917 CRL.P No. 3084 of 2024

¶34

supported with the joint affidavit of the parties is taken on record. In paragraphs 1 to 3 of the joint memo which is signed by the parties and their respective advocates, it is stated as under:

¶35

"1. At the intervention of elders and well-wishers both the parties ie. Petitioner and the 2^nd respondent / defacto complainant have settled the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶36

The petitioner submits that the petitioner and the daughter of the 2^nd respondent was married on 1407-2017 and the said complaint is filed by the 2^nd respondent i.e. mother-in-law of the petitioner and in order to put an end to the litigation both the parties have agreed to settle the dispute by withdrawing the cases between the parties.

¶37

The petitioner and the 2^nd respondent have no claims as against each other and that the 2^nd respondent undertakes to withdraw the complaint filed by her and consequently she has no objections to allow the above petition."

¶38

The parties who are present before the Court, are identified by their respective advocates.

¶39

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMGOPAL AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - AIR 2022

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:16917 CRL.P No. 3084 of 2024

¶42

(14) SCC 531 , has held that even in cases involving noncompoundable offences depending upon the nature of settlement, extra ordinary powers of the High Court can be exercised beyond metes and bounds of Section 320 of Cr.PC.

¶43

The High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.PC in a case involving non-compoundable offence is required to take into consideration the gravity of offences and also the nature of offence. If the alleged offences are purely private in nature and if it is between the close family members and if a settlement is arrived between the parties who are close family members who intend to give a quietus to all the disputes, can quash such criminal proceedings. The High Court is required to exercise such discretion taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case surrounding the incident and also the background in which the settlement has been arrived between the parties having regard to the nature of the offences and the conduct of the accused before and after the incident. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case wherein the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC is required to be exercised to do

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:16917 CRL.P No. 3084 of 2024

¶46

complete justice to the parties who are before this Court. Accordingly, the following order.

¶47

The Criminal petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in in in S.C.No.149/2022 pending before the Court of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, arising out of Crime No.77/2020 registered by Mandya West Police Station, Mandya, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 323, 324, 114, 498A, 307, 201 IPC, stands quashed.

¶48

Sd /- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶49

KK

Sri Shreyas v. State by Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shreyas v. State by Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Vs the State by Nangali

Naga Vs State of Karnataka

Ranjith Kumar a Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Talha Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Anil Kumar Lobo @ Anil Lobo Vs State of Karnataka

Devaraj Poojary Vs State of Karnataka by