IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 8665/2017 BETWEEN 1. SHYAM BABU R., AGED AOUT 38 YEARS, S/O SRI R.RAJASEKARAN, 2. RAJASEKARAN R., AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, S/O LATE R.RAMANATHAN, 3. KRISHNAKUMARI B AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, W/O SRI. RAJASEKARAN R., 4. SMITHA R., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, W/O SRI. SHIVAKUMAR G.A., PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO.16A, 1ST FLOOR, NAKKEERAR STREET, KAVYA GARDEN, PHASE-2, PORUR, CHENNAI-600116 5. RADHA KRISHNAN P., AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O SRI PACKRISWAMI, R/AT NO.A-162, JAINAGAR, THIRUVARUMBUR, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI, TAMIL NADU-620013 6. KAMATCHI GUPTA R., AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMANATHAN, R/AT NO.793, 13TH CROSS, 16TH MAIN, B.T.M LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560076 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GURUNATH T. S., ADV.) AND 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TILAK NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 011 REP. BY ITS, THE SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. NAGANANDINI B.P., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, W/O SRI. SHYAM BABU. R., PRESENTLY R/AT 36/36.
RANGA NIVAS (GROUND FLOOR), 3RD CROSS, K.V.LAYOUT, 4TH BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1 SRI. ABHILASH N., ADV. FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY THE 1ST RESOPONDENT IN C.C.NO.3682/2015 PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Office objections are over ruled. Sri Abhilash N., learned counsel has filed vakalath for respondent No.2.
2. Petitioner No.1-Shyam Babu and respondent No.2-B.P. Naganandini, and their respective counsels are present before the court. Heard the parties and their counsels. Both of them have filed a Joint Memo before this court reporting compromise between themselves and consequently, respondent No.2 has no objection to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.3682/2015 pending on the file of the II Addl. CMM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 354 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. There is no dispute that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife. The wife has filed complaint against the petitioner and others for the above said offences. The dispute between the parties essentially arose out of matrimonial relationship. Now, the parties have compounded the offences to live happily hereinafter. They have also filed MC Petition No.3841/2017, which is pending on the file of the City Family Court, Bengaluru.
4. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case and as there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings, I would like to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein it 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.
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.”
5. 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.”
6. 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 decisions. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings.
7. Keeping in view 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 proceedings in CC No.3682/2015 (arising out of Crime No.61/2014) pending on the file of the II Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*