IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.430 OF 2019 CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5302 OF 2019 IN CRL. P. NO.430/2019 BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNAPPA DODDAMANI, S/O. LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU.
2. SMT. SUSHEELA, W/O. KRISHNAPPA DODDAMANI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC:HOMEMAKER, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.7, 2ND STAGE, 11TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072. ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI.C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADVOCATES] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY VINOBANAGAR POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SMT. SHANTHABAI, W/O. BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT SOODA QUARTERS, NO.2, SHIVAPPA NAYAKA LAYOUT, NEAR PRIYADARSHINI SCHOOL, KASHIPURA, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
[BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R1;
... RESPONDENTS SRI. SATISH M. DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2] THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDIGNS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.288/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VINOBHANAGARA POLICE, SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 307, 325, 114 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.
* * * IN CRL. P. NO.5302/2019 BETWEEN:
SMT. SHILPASHREE, W/O. H.B. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, NEAR PRIYADARSHINI SCHOOL, SHIVAPPA NAYAKA EXTENSION, KASHIPURA, SHIVAMOGGA-577 204. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI.C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADVOCATES] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY VINOBANAGAR POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY THE , STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SMT. SHANTHABAI, W/O. BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT SOODA QUARTERS, NO.2, SHIVAPPA NAYAKA LAYOUT, NEAR PRIYADARSHINI SCHOOL, KASHIPURA, SHIVAMOGGA-577 204. ... RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SATISH M. DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2] THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDIGNS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.288/2018 OF THE VINOBHANAGARA POLICE, SHIVAMOGGA, PENDING IN CR. NO. 523/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, 3RD COURT, SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 307, 325, 114 R/W SEC.
34 OF IPC.
* * * THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Sri. Satish M.Doddamani, learned counsel is permitted to come on record in Crl.P. No.5302/2019 for the 2nd respondent.
2. The parties have filed a Memo of Settlement along with Joint Affidavit dated 13.11.2019 in the above cases for settlement and for quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.288/2018.
3. The petitioners [accused Nos.2 and 3] in Crl.P. No.430/2019 are the husband and wife respectively and their daughter [accused No.1] i.e., the petitioner in Crl.P. No.5302/2019 is the daughter-in-law of the complainant/2nd respondent. On 25.06.2018 marriage took place among Smt. Shilpashree [accused No.1] and one Sri. H.B.Vijayakumar, son of Smt. Shanthabai [complainant/respondent No.2]. The alleged offences are related to Sections 307, 325, 114 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. Even though the allegations are serious in nature, during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the parties have entered into settlement among themselves. To that effect, Memo of Settlement along with Joint Affidavit have been filed in the above petitions and they are taken on record.
4. Time and again the Supreme Court has held that in respect of heinous crime, the Court should not interfere in respect of settlement among the parties themselves. At the same time, in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another; reported in (2012)10 Supreme Court Cases 303, wherein at para 61 it is held as under:
“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
Undisputedly, the parties are related to each other. Therefore, the parties can enter into settlement in order to avoid further complications and strain relationship among themselves. Accordingly, the Memo of Settlement and Joint Affidavit are taken into consideration for the purpose of interference with the FIR filed in Crime No.288/2018.
In view of these factual aspects of the matter, the FIR filed against the petitioners in Crime No.288/2018 dated 03.11.2018 of the Vinobhanagara Police, Shivamogga, for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 325, 114 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and the subsequent proceedings pending in Cr. No.523/2018 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, 3rd Court, Shivamogga are set aside.
Accordingly, the above petitions stand allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE Ksm*