IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRL.P.NO.8446/2019 BETWEEN 1. ANIL KUMAR S/O. SHIVARUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 2. SMT. LALITHA W/O. SHIVARUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. SHIVARUDRAIAH S/O. LATE NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 4. ANAND KUMAR S/O. SHIVARUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 5. RESHMA D/O. ANAND KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT 9TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, NO.277, MAHESWARI NAGARA, T.DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 057. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI LAKSHMIKANTH K, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAGALGUNTE POLICE STATION, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. DIVYA. R @ BHAVYA W/O. ANIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT MASTENAHALLI VILLAGE, HENNAGARA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, PIN-562 107.
ALSO R/AT NO.277, 9TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, MAHESWARI NAGARA, T.DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-57. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1, SMT. SHWETHA M, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.10033/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 45TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.498-A R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P.ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 and the learned HCGP.
2. The Counsels have filed into the Court a joint memo signed by petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 who are present before the Court and are also signed by their respective Counsels. The Counsels have identified their respective parties.
3. On a query, respondent no.2 who is present before the Court, would submit that they have amicably resolved the dispute and that she is presently residing with the petitioners in the matrimonial house.
4. This Court has perused the complaint. It is alleged in the complaint that it was misrepresented that the fetus was not fully developed and induced her to agree for medical termination of the pregnancy. The same being of serious nature, respondent no.2-complainant was queried, to which she would reply that everything is alright now and she does not intend to pursue the allegation and that the complaint was given under a misconception and she intends to withdraw the allegations in its entirety.
5. The Memorandum of Settlement filed in M.C.No.3725/2018 is produced along with the joint memo and that M.C.No.3725/2018 on the file of IV Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, has already been closed in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement. That the settlement between the parties came about in the mediation. The joint memo reads as under:
“Both the petitioners and respondent No.2 submits before this Hon’ble court as follows:-
1. It is submits that, the respondent No.2 has fill a complainant against the petitioners for punishable under section 498(A) R/w 34 of IPC and 3& 4 D.P Act based on the complainant the respondent No.1 police has filed the Charge sheet in C.C.No.10033/2019 pending on the file of the 45th Additional chief metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore.
2. It is further submits that due to intervention of the friends, well wishers the dispute between the respondent No.2 and petitioners have settled before the mediation center in MC No.3725/2018. In that both the petitioners and the respondents have agreed to dissolve the disputes pending against each other and further both the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 have withdrawn the allegations against each other and have decided to live together. Accordingly, both the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 has
3. It is further submits that, as per the mediation report the respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in CC No.10033/2019 on the file of the 45th ACMM, Bangalore. Consequently the respondent No.2 has no objection to allow the petition.
4. It is further submits that, both the parties have entered in to the above petition without any coercion, force and they entered this joint memo with their free consent.
Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to allow the petition as prayed for, in the interest of justice.”
6. In the light of the above facts and in the light of the answers elicited from the complainant, this Court is of the considered opinion that no purpose would be served in directing the parties to undergo the rigors of trial. As submitted by the complainant and affirmed by petitioner no.1, both are living in the matrimonial house. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the instant case requires to be considered in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of GIAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB – (2012)10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court in paragraph 58 has been pleased to laid down the guidelines as under:
“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.”
7. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that allowing the petition and quashing the proceedings is necessary to secure ends of justice. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.10033/2019 pending on the file of the XLV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.0274/2018 registered with the respondent-Police stands quashed.
KK CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE