IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7907 OF 2019 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10150 OF 2017 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1031 OF 2018 IN CRL.P. NO.7907 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
NURUDDIN, S/O NOOR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: LORRY BUSINESS, R/AT NEAR KADAMBA BAR, RAKSHANAPURAM, HASSAN - 573 201. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K A, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. SALMA SULTANA, W/O NOORUDDIN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, JCR LAYOUT, III CROSS, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE POLICE OF CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N SRINIVAS, ADVCOATE FOR R1, SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, HCGP FOR R2) ***** THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST HIM IN C.C.NO.2011/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 504, 323, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT.
IN CRL.P. NO.10150 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:
1. HAJIRA, D/O NOOR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: FDA AT JMFC COURT MUDIGERE, R/AT NEAR KADAMBA BAR, RAKSHANAPURAM, HASSAN - 573 201.
2. SMT TAHASINA, W/O ABDUL SAHID, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE, NAVAYATPADI, HASSAN – 573201. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K A, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. SALMA SULTANA, W/O NOORUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, JCR LAYOUT, III CROSS, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE POLICE OF CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N SRINIVAS, ADVCOATE FOR R1, SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, HCGP FOR R2) **** THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2011/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHITRADURGA REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498-A, 504, 323, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
IN CRL.P.NO.1031 OF 2018: BETWEEN:
1. ILIYAS, S/O NOOR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE DRIVER, R/AT NEAR KADAMBA BAR, RAKSHANAPURAM, HASSAN - 573201.
2. SMT.TAJUNNISA, W/O NOOR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NEAR KADAMBA BAR, RAKSHANAPURAM, HASSAN – 573201. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K A, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. SALMA SULTANA, W/O NOORUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, JCR LAYOUT, III CROSS, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE POLICE OF CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N SRINIVAS, ADVCOATE FOR R1, SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, HCGP FOR R2) ***** THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST THEM IN C.C.NO.2011/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 504, 323, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3, 4 OF D.P ACT.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the second respondent and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. The petitioner in the first petition and the first respondent – complainant are before this Court and have filed the application under Section 320 read with Section 482 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to compound the offences. The application is signed by both the petitioner and the first respondent – complainant. The first respondent individually has filed an affidavit dated 11.12.2019 which reads as under:
“ I, Smt. Salma Sultana W/o Nooruddin @ Mohammed Nooruddin Pasha, aged about 26 years, JCR Layout, III Cross, Chitradurga – 577 501, today at Bengaluru, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
1. I am the respondent No.1 in the above case and know the facts of the case.
2. I submit that, my marriage with the petitioner herein took place on 26.11.2010. The accused No.2 is my brother – in – law, accused No.3 is my mother – in – law and accused Nos.4 and 5 are my sisters- in-laws. At the instance of elders and well- wishers, now we have settled our dispute amicably to have peaceful life, accordingly we will get our marriage dissolved mutually.
3. I submit that, in view of the settlement so arrived, I agreed to receive a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) from the petitioner herein towards the full and final settlement and permanent alimony. Out of the said sum, of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only), today I received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) vide demand draft bearing No.050639 dated 10.12.2019, drawn on Bank of India, Hassan branch, in my favour and agreed to receive the balance of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) vide demand draft bearing No.050638 dated 09.12.2019, drawn on Bank of India, Hassan branch, in a proceedings that would be filed by me for dissolution of my marriage with the petitioner herein, before the Hon’ble court at Chitradurga. Except this amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) I will not claim any alimony or right against the petitioner herein or any of his family members for ever.
4. I submit that, in view of the settlement so arrived between us and since the offences for which charge sheet has been submitted are non compoundable offense, we the parties are before this Hon’ble court seeking an order to permit us to compound the offences and to quash entire proceedings in CC No.2011/2016 pending on the file of the Learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Chitradurga registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 323 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and 3 and 4 of DP Act.
5. I submit that, since the offences alleged in the aforesaid case are not compoundable in nature, the only alternative remedy available to me and the petitioner herein is to invoke the inherent powers of this Hon’ble Court to secure the ends of justice.
6. I submit that, on my complaint was registered the case was same is pending in CC No.2011/2016 pending on the file of the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Chitradurga and in view of the amicable settlement no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue.
7. I submit that, the Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled in various pronouncements that, the High Court exercising its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings in relation to matrimonial disputes, taking into consideration the special circumstances of the case and section 320 Cr.P.C., does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. I submit that, in view of the special circumstances of the case as stated supra, it is absolutely necessary that, the proceedings in the case viz., CC No.2011/2016 pending on the file of the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Chitradurga is required to be quashed to secure the ends of justice.
9. I also undertakes to withdraw the petition viz., Crl. Misc. No.13/2019 filed by the before the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga against the petitioner herein under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, which was filed for the relief of maintenance.
10. I submit that, in view of the settlement so arrived as stated supra, I have no objection to allow the petitions viz. Crl.P. No.10150/2017 and Crl.P.No.1031/2018 pending on the file of this Hon’ble Court which were filed by the accused Nos.2 to 4 i.e., my in-laws in CC No.2011/2016 pending on the file of the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Chitradurga.
11. I submit that, if this Hon’ble Court is not pleased to allow the petition, we the parties will suffer irreparable loss.
12. I submit that, I have been presenting this application on my own will and volition.
Hence it is just, necessary and expedient to allow the annexed application as prayed for.
What is stated above is true and correct. ”
3. The case of the petitioner is that his marriage with the first respondent was performed on 26.11.2010. That the petitioners in the connected petitions are his sisters, brother and mother. That on account of certain differences that arose in the family the same led to the registration of case in Crime No.6/2016 on the file of the second respondent police for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.
4. It is submitted that subsequently the case came to be registered in C.C. No.2011/2016 and a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 504, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.
5. It is submitted that on the intervention of the elders and well wishers the parties have concluded to amicably resolve the disputes that have arisen and thereby give a quietus to the matter to enable the parties to lead their lives with peace and dignity.
6. It is submitted that in furtherance of the resolution arrived amongst the parties, the parties have agreed to dissolve their marriage and it is also agreed that the petitioners would pay a sum of Rs.5 lakh by way of permanent alimony and full settlement of her claims. The first respondent would submit that no injuries is caused to her and she has not been subjected to any medical examination and in that view of the matter, this Court has looked into the material on record including the application, affidavit and the charge sheet. The material available do not disclose the commission of any heinous offence or the use of any deadly weapons and in the light of the statement of the first respondent the charge under Section 323 also requires to be discarded.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is an appropriate case where this Court is required to exercise the inherent powers vested in it under Section 482 to secure the ends of justice as also in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at para 58 was pleased to observe and hold 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.”
8. In the light of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.2011/2016 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, stands quashed.
Sri N Srinivas, learned counsel is permitted to file his vakalath in Crl.P.No.7907/2019.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl