IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO.6865/2017 BETWEEN 1. SRI. D. KANTHARAJA, S/O LATE DODDA HOBLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE DODDA OBLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK 3. SRI. LAKSHMIPRASAD, S/O LATE DODDA OBLAIAH, OCC:LECTURER, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, ALL THE THREE ARE R/AT “LAXMINARASIMHASWAMY NILAYA”, 5TH CROSS, VINAYAK NAGAR, VV EXTENSION, HOSAKOTE-562114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 4. SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC:TYPIST, R/AT GANDHI CIRCLE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA-573 116 HASSAN DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. J. S. HALASHETTI, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY K. R. PURAM POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 036 NOW R/BY SPECIAL P.P., BENGALURU-560 001 2. SMT. SUMA S. K., W/O D. KANTHARAJA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC:ACCOUNTANT, PREVIOUSLY R/AT BHAGAVATHI LAYOUT, SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU - 572101.
NOW C/O EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, NO.36, LAKSHMI COMPLEX, NH-4, OLD MADRAS ROAD, OPPOSITE SYNDICATE BANK, KR PURAM, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560036 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1.
R2-SERVED. ) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.268/2016 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT, 1961 AND SEC.498A R/W 34 OF IPC WHICH IS CURRENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF X A.C.M.M., MAYO HALL, BENGALURU CITY MARKED AS ANNEXURE NO.2.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner No.1-husband and his counsel are present before the court. Respondent No.2-wife in spite of notice issued, remained absent and un- represented.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners files a Memo dated 15.12.2017 along with a certified copy of, the Memorandum of settlement entered into between the parties u/s.89 of CPC read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005, before the Mediation Centre in respect of MC
petitioner No.1 in closing/quashing the proceedings in Crime No.268/2016 registered by the first respondent Police for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The parties have appeared before the IV Addl.
Family Court at Bengaluru, in MC No.2745/2017 and filed the Memorandum of Settlement. The learned Judge after satisfying with regard to the settlement entered into between the parties and after recording its satisfaction, accepted the Mediation report and granted decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner therein.
4. In view of the above said acceptance of the compromise before a Judicial Court, there is no need once again to insist for the personal presence of respondent No.2 when the notice issued by this court is served upon her.
5. At this stage, it is worth to note here a decision rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein the Apex Court 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 ”
6. 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.”
7. 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 decision. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings.
8. Keeping in view of 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, all further proceedings in Crime No.268/2016 registered by the first respondent Police pending on the file of the X ACMM Court, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*