IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRL.P. NO.8007/2019 BETWEEN 1. SRI. K.R. SANDEEP S/O. K. G. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 2. SMT. PREMA W/O. K. G. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3. K. G. RAMESH S/O. GIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO.3, 2ND ‘B’ CROSS, 6TH MAIN ROAD, MEENAKSHINAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BASAVESHWARA NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 079.
(BY SRI A V RAMAKRISHNA, ADV.) AND 1. STATE BY KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, ...PETITIONERS HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. RANGEGOWDA. S. N. S/O. NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 3. SMT. S. R. SONIYA W/O. K. R. SANDEEP, D/O. RANGEGOWDA S. N., AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT D.SANTHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHAANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116.
(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI N.D.JAYADEVAPPA, ADV. FOR R2 & R3.) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.190/2019 OF KAMAKSHIPALYA P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,307, R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE FO THE V A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners identifies the petitioners i.e. K.R. Sandeep, Prema and K.G. Ramesh and the learned counsel for the respondents identifies the second respondent one S.N. Rangegowda and the third respondent S.R. Soniya.
3. On a query from the court, the third respondent would submit that she has read the affidavit and that the matter has been settled and she desires to withdraw the complaint in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Mediation Centre, Bengaluru. On a query the second respondent would answer in Kannada that the affidavit has been explained and he desires to abide by the settlement arrived at between the parties.
4. The settlement has come about between the parties before the Mediation Centre, on a reference by the 5th Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C. No.4742/2019. The parties have entered into and executed the Memorandum of Settlement which reads as under:-
“MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT UNDER SECTION 89 OF CPC READ WITH RULES 24 AND 25 OF THE KARNATAKA CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDIATION) RULES, 2005.
I. The Petitioner/husband has filed a the above petition under Sec.13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, praying dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent/wife.
II. The aforesaid petition was referred to mediation for resolving the dispute between the parties. During the course of mediation, the petitioner and the respondent with their respective counsel wee present, they have resolved their dispute and have agreed to the following terms and conditions:
1. Both the Petitioner and the Respondent got married on 25.04.2018 at C.G.M.R. Kalyana Mantapa, Mysore Road, Channarayapatna, Hassan District, as per Hindu rites and customs.
2. Due to irreconcilable differences and incompatibility of temperaments their marriage is irretrievably broken down. Both the Petitioner and the Respondent have been separated from each other since January 2019. During the course of mediation, both the parties have agreed to dissolve their above said marriage by a decree of divorce.
3. The parties state that they have no children born to them from this wedlock.
4. The petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Only) as permanent alimony/maintenance to the respondent in full and final settlement of all her claims, vide D.D.No.804079, dated:14.10.2019, drawn on Vijaya Bank, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru, in the name of the respondent/wife and the same will be handed over to the respondent wife before the Hon’ble Court while reporting the settlement, and respondent has agreed to receive the same.
5. Both the Petitioner and the Respondent state that further they have no claims against each other in whatsoever nature either of maintenance or permanent alimony or of movables or immovable properties belonging to each other, past, present or future.
6. The petitioner and respondent state that they have already exchanged their belongings such as gold, silver and all other movables belongings each other and they have no other claims of whatsoever.
7. The respondent agreed to assist/co-operate with the petitioner to quash/closer of the Crime No.190/2019 filed U/s 498A, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3&4 of the D.P.Act pending on the files of the Hon’ble V ACMM Court Bangalore. The petitioner and respondent has agreed to withdraw all the cases filed each other.
8. The Petitioner and Respondent further state that there has been no collusion or force, fraud or any undue influence in settling this matter and entering into this settlement in the aforesaid manner.
9. The Petitioner and Respondent agree and undertake not to interfere in the personal lives of each other in future.
III. In view of the aforesaid agreement entered into between the parties, the parties pray that this Hon’ble Family Court be pleased to dissolve the marriage solemnized on 25.04.2018 at C.G.M.R. Kalyana Mantapa, Mysore Road, Channarayapatna, Hassan District, by granting a judgment and decree of divorce in terms of the above agreement.
IV. Parties will appear on 16.10.2019 before Hon’ble Court for passing of orders in terms of the agreement.”
That in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement the family court has been pleased to dissolve the marriage in terms of Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
5. This court has perused the complaint. The complaint is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498(A) and 34 of IPC read with Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The sum and substance of the allegation is that when the second respondent-complainant visited his daughter’s house on 20.05.2019 at 6 a.m. he found his daughter struggling and immediately he shifted her to a nearby private hospital and thereafter to Victoria hospital and that the daughter mumbled that her husband and mother-in- law tried to kill her by forcibly administering medication. Apart from the statement, the complaint does not disclose the commission of any vicious or violent act by the petitioners-
accused. It is fairly submitted that the complaint is still at the crime stage and no investigation has been commenced and excepting the oral statement of the complainant there is no other material to demonstrate the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and in that view of the matter and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Apex Court held 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.”
As stated supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court after analyzing the various circumstances has held that in civil matters and in the matrimonial matters it would not be beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court to exercise the inherent power to quash the proceedings initiated for prosecution of non- compoundable offences also provided the complaint does not reveal the commission of any heinous crime or the commission of any vicious act, that it would shock the conscious of the society. The instant complaint does not disclose any commission of heinous crime.
6. The petitioners and respondent Nos.2 & 3 are present before the Court and are identified by their respective Counsels.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court rendered in the case of SHIJI ALIAS PAPPU & OTHERS VS RADHIKA & ANOTHER – (2011)10 SCC 705. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would invite the attention of the Court to paragraph 17 of the said ruling, to contend that mere mentioning of an offence which is non-compoundable would not come in the way of the High Court to exercise its inherent powers and quash the complaint if the Court comes to the conclusion that no meaningful purpose would be served by directing the parties to take the proceedings to its logical end. Paragraph 17 of the aforesaid ruling reads as under:
“17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.PC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.PC. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.PC on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.PC.”
8. Learned High Court Govt. Pleader would also submit that no material is available to suggest otherwise. Hence, the joint affidavit dated 10.12.2019 is accepted and the petition is allowed. Consequently, the complaint registered as Crime No.190/2019 with the Kamakshipalya Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of the V Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru stands quashed.
Learned counsel Sri. N.D. Jayadevappa filed vakalath on behalf of the second and third respondent.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE