IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6168/2017 BETWEEN:
MADHAVI CHARI W/O VIKRAM SRINIVASAN CHARI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILLA NO.261, ADARSHA PALM MEDOWS, RAMAGONDANAHALI, BANGALORE -560 066 ..PETITIONER (BY SMT.DEEPA JAYADEV, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.B.V.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION, AIRPORT SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE-01 2.VIKRAM SRINIVASAN CHARI S/O LATE S. SRINIVASAN VILLA NO. 195, PRESTIGE OZONE, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560 066. ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1, SRI.SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING CR.NO.221/2016 AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.C.J.M., BANGALORE RURAL DIST., BANGALORE WITH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.7634/2016 WHICH IS REGISTERED BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Sri.Sandeep Patil, Advocate files vakalath for respondent No.2. The petitioner and her counsel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, respondent No.2 and his counsel are present before the Court.
2. The parties have already compromised the matter before the Bengaluru Mediation Centre vide Memorandum of Settlement dated 03.07.2017.
3. It is the matrimonial dispute between the parties which led to filing of complaint and counter complaints against each other by husband and wife. In that context it appears Crime No.221/2016 has been registered against the petitioner herein on the basis of the complaint lodged by second respondent. The offences alleged in the said complaint are under Sections 143, 342, 447, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. The said offences are neither punishable for death or imprisonment for life and there is no serious impact if compromise is ordered to be entered into between the parties except Section 506 of IPC and other offences appears to be compoundable. In view of the decision reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 between Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and another wherein Apex Court laid down the following principles while recording compromise particularly husband and wife in matrimonial case as under:
“Thus, held, heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants while working in their capacity as public servants, cannot be quashed even though victim or victim’s family and offender have settled the dispute – Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
- But criminal case having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing – Offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute, High Court may quash criminal proceedings – High Court, in such cases, must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between parties and whether to secure ends of justice, it is appropriate the criminal case is put to an end- If such question(s) are answered in the affirmative, High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
4. In view of the above said decision, in this case there is no legal impediment to record the compromise. Hence, Joint memo filed by both the parties is hereby accepted. The compromise between the parties is also hereby accepted and in view of the above said facts and circumstances, the case pending before the I ACJM, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in C.C.No.7634/2016 so far as it relates to petitioner is ordered to be quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN