IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO.8365/2017 BETWEEN MANDEEP SINGH, S/O. MR. AMAR SINGH BHUTANI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. 622, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD-C-CROSS, HRBR LAYOUT, 2ND BLOCK, KALYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 043 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR A. R. ADV. ) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY KOTHNUR POLICE STATION, KENGERI SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY, REP.BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR. BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001.
2. TARUN KAUR, W/O. MR. MANDEEP SINGH, A/A 35 YEARS, R/AT NO. 5071, SOBHA, CHRYSANTHEMUM, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 560 077 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1 SRI. A. N. SOMEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.56389/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE XI ACMM, BENGALURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner and his counsel are present before the Court.
2. The 2nd respondent is present before the court.
Sri. A.N.Somegowda, Advocate, files vakalath for the 2nd respondent.
3. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent have filed a joint petition seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No.56389/2016 (arising out of Crime No.27/2016 of Kothanur Police Station) registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 323 r/w. 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the file of the XI Additional C.M.M. at Bengaluru.
4. The petitioner is the husband of Respondent No.2. They have also approached the Family Court in MC No.1448/2016. They have entered into a settlement before the Bangalore Mediation Centre and by virtue of the same, the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, has granted a Decree of Divorce. At Para -5 of the Compromise Petition, the parties have agreed for some terms. In terms of the said compromise, the petitioner is making payment of Rs.3,50,000/- by way of a Demand Draft No.506578 dated 29.11.2017 in favour the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent who is present before the court acknowledges receipt of the said Demand Draft. The petitioner is also handing over a set of Keys to the 2nd respondent before this court. In the said Compromise Petition, the parties have also agreed to file appropriate petition for quashing of the criminal complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner and others in C.C. No.56389/2016.
5. On a careful perusal of the factual aspects of this case, due to some misunderstanding, the 2nd respondent has filed a criminal complaint against the husband and his family members. In view of the settlement between the parties, the proceedings deserves to be quashed.
6. At this stage, it is worth to note here a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has given certain guidelines with regard to quashing of the proceedings whenever the parties have entered into compromise. The relevant portion of the said decision reads thus:- .
“Held -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.
………….
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, 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.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx “But criminal cases 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 it 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 proceedings…”
7. This is one such case, which falls under the categories of the cases as per the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In this case, the complaint lodged by the wife is arising out of matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife and the same has been resolved between themselves. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings in view of the terms of the joint memo along with an affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 before this court. Accordingly, I pass the following:-
ORDER The petition is allowed. The joint memo filed by the petitioner along with an affidavit is hereby accepted. Consequently, the entire proceedings in C.C. No.56389/2016 registered against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, pending on the file of the XI ACMM, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*