IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 9798/2017 BETWEEN 1. GOVINDRAJU N., S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED 38 YEARS, 2. JAYAMMA, W/O VINCENT PAUL, AGED 50 YEARS, BOTH R/AT NO.472, 1ST MAIN,PANCHASHEELANAGAR, MUDALAPALYA, BENGALURU – 560 072 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GURURAJ YADRAVI, ADV. FOR SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SHO, BASAVANAGUDI WPS, BENGALURU CITY, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-01 2. SMT. SHRUTHI, AGED 26 YEARS, W/O GOVINDRAJU N.
R/AT 3RD CROSS, HEROHALLY, MADHAVESHWARNAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU-560 091 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1 SRI. M. V. SRINIVASA, ADV. FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.22596/2015 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner No.1-husband and his counsel, respondent No.2-wife and her counsel are present before the court.
2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and the parties who are before the court.
3. It is submitted by the parties that they have entered into a compromise and filed a Memorandum of Settlement u/s.89 read with Rule 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005, along with the affidavit of the second respondent – wife, stating that the proceedings pending in CC No.22596/2015 on the file of the II ACMM Court, Bengaluru, is to be quashed.
4. On perusal of the Memorandum of Settlement, it reveals that the terms and conditions of settlement have been categorically mentioned at paragraph 4 that, both the parties have accepted that they would take appropriate steps for quashing of CC No.22596/2015. In support of the settlement, respondent No.2 files an affidavit to that effect.
5. In view of the settlement, the first petitioner is making payment of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) by way of two DDs drawn in favour of the second respondent. The second respondent who is present before the court acknowledges the receipt of the said DDs. And submits that she has no objection to record the compromise and pass appropriate order.
6. There is no dispute that the petitioner No.1 and the second respondent are the husband and wife and due to some family dispute, it appears the wife has filed a Criminal Case against the husband and his family members and the same has been registered in Crime No.52/2015 and later, culminated into CC No.22596/2015 on the file of the II Addl. CMM, Bengaluru, which is sought to be quashed.
7. At this stage, it is worth to refer a decision rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein the Apex Court has held thus:-
“Power of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from power of a criminal court of compounding offences under S. 320 - Cases where power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised where the parties have settled their dispute, held, depends on facts and circumstances of each case - Before exercise of inherent quashment power under S.482, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact ”
8. It is also worth to note here the subsequent decision rendered in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others –vs- Babita Raghuvanshi and another reported in [(2013) 4 SCC 58], wherein the Apex Court, particularly referring to the matrimonial disputes, has laid down a law that the court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to quash the proceedings where exclusively they are pertaining to matrimonial disputes, which reads as follows:-
“ The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC are wide and unfettered. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. Thus, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 Cr.PC does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC.
Consequently, even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, it is held that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 Cr.PC would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of IR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings. The Institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 Cr.PC enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables the Supreme Court to pass such orders.
In the present case, the appellants (the husband and his relatives, accused under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) had not sought compounding of the offences. They had approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of the criminal proceedings. The High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings in question by accepting the settlement arrived at by the parties concerned.”
9. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, this case also falls under the category as mentioned in the Hon'ble Apex Court’s decision. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings.
10. Keeping in view of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this court has applied its mind to the factual matrix of this case and found that the dispute is basically a private and personal in nature, and the parties have resolved their entire conflict between themselves.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the further proceedings in CC No.22596/2015 pending on the file of the II ACMM Court, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*