IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRL.P. NO.7630/2018 c/w CRL.P. NO.4255/2019 IN CRL.P. NO.7630/2018 BETWEEN 1. SRI. SANJAYKUMAR S/O LATE SHRIRAMACHANDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 2. SMT SEEMA W/O SANJAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 3 . SRI SUYASH S/O SANJAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 4 . SRI SUVIGYA S/O SANJAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT SHIVAM NIVAS, NASIRGANG, ROTHAS DISTRICT, BIHAR STATE, PINCODE: 821310 ...PETITIONERS (BY SMT RAKSHA KEERTHANA.K FOR SRI KEMPARAJU, ADVS.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ULSUR GATE WOMEN POLICE STATION BENGALURU REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU – 560001.
2. AMRITHA KUMARI W/O SOMIT KUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT SRI VENKATESHWARA P G FOR LADIES, NEAR ANJINAYA TEMPLE AND GOPALAN GRAND MALL, BENIGANAHALLI, BENGALURU CITY PIN - 560093 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP FOR R1, SRI S.SHANKARAPPA, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE IN C.C.NO.22956/2017 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A AND 506 OF IPC AND 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT., PENDING ON THE FILE BEFORE THE HON'BLE 6TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGIASTRATE COURT, BENGALURU CITY.
IN CRL.P. NO.4255/2019 BETWEEN SRI SOMITKUMAR S/O SANJAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT, SHIVAM NIVAS, NASIRGANG, ROTHAS DISTRICT, BIHAR STATE PIN CODE-821310.
...PETITIONER (BY SMT. RAKSHA KEERTHANA K FOR SRI KEMPARAJU, ADVS) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ULSUR GATE WOMEN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU-560001 2. AMRITHA KUMARI W/O SOMIT KUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT SRI VENKATESHWARA PG FOR LADIES NEAR ANJINAIYA TEMPLE AND GOPALAN GRAND MALL, BENIGANAHALLI, BENGALURU CITY PIN-560093 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP FOR R1, SRI S.SHANKARAPPA, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE IN C.C.NO.22956/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,506 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader.
2. Since both the petitions are connected, they are taken up together for disposal. The first petitioner in the connected petition i.e. Crl.P No.4255/2019 is the husband of the second respondent-complainant and in Crl.P No.7630/2018 the petitioner No.1 is the father-in-law, petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the brothers-in- law of the second respondent complainant. The second respondent-complainant is common in both the petitions.
3. A joint memo dated 19.11.2019 has been filed into court signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and their respective counsels. The parties have also filed a joint affidavit which reads as under:-
“JOINT AFFIDAVIT We Sri. Suyash Kumar S/o Sanjay Kumar, Aged about 28 years, R/at Shivam Nivas, Nasirgang, Rothas District Bihar State. Pin Code-821310 and AMRITHA KUMARI, W/o Somit kumar, Aged about 27 years, Residing at Sri Venkateshwara, PG for ladies, Near Anjinaiya temple and Gopalan grant mall, Beniganahalli, Bengaluru city, Pin-560093 We are the petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2 in the above petition submits as follows;
1. It is submitted that both the petitioners and the Respondent No.2 have settled the dispute amicably out of court due to intervention of elders, friends and well- wishers.
2. It is further submitted that the petitioner (in the Petition No.4255/2019) and the Respondent No.2 are the husband and wife and there is no issue out of their wed- lock and both of them have been living separately since last almost 3 years and 3 months.
3. That both of them i.e the petitioner of Crl.P.No.4255/2019 and the Respondent no 2 do not have any grievance or claim nor will have in future against each other and they have decided to withdraw the allegation against each other in all the cases filed by the respondent No.2 including the present one.
4. That, both the petitioner of Crl.P.No.4255/2019 and the respondent no 2 do not intend to continue to be tied in the nuptial knot and thus they have decided to live separately from now onwards permanently by taking mutual divorce by filing petition under section 13B of The Hindu Marriage Act 1955, before the court of Principal Judge Family Court at Bengaluru, Karnataka in near future.
5. It is further submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties respondent No.2 has no objection if the Proceedings in C.C.No.22956/2017, pending on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru is quashed by this Hon’ble Court. And it is further stated that Respondent No.2 has already withdrawn on 29.06.2019 the Domestic violence Act case filed by her vide case No.144/2018.
6. It is further submitted that the petitioner of Crl.P.No.4255/2019 as well as the Respondent no 2 without any influence or coercion and after careful reading the joint memo have filed before the Hon’ble High Court and in the best of their mental state have affixed their respective signature.
Wherefore it is prayed that in consequent thereof this Hon’ble court may be pleased to quash the Proceedings against the petitioners also in C.C.No.22956/2017, pending on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru, in the interest of justice.
We swear in the name of God that this is our name and signature and the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief, and information.”
4. Today a memo is filed into court by the learned counsel for the petitioners enclosing a copy of the petition preferred by the parties under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act and registered as M.C. No.6584/2019 praying for dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the parties on 01.05.2015. In Crl.P. No.4255/2019 the petitioner is the husband of the second respondent and in Crl.P. No.7630/2018 the first respondent is the father-in-law, second respondent is the mother-in-law and third & fourth respondents are the brothers-in-law of the second respondent.
5. That the marriage of the petitioner and second respondent was solemnized on 01.05.2015 at Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh and the wedding reception was held on 03.05.2015.
That shortly after the marriage ceremonies were completed. It is alleged that differences arose and on account of the marital discord resulting in lodging of FIR registered as Crime No.0097/2016 by the first respondent police on 09.12.2016 for the offences punishable under Section 506, 498A and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
6. The complainant-second respondent is before this court and on a query would submit that she does not desire to pursue the complaint and that the parties having decided to dissolve the marriage and desire to part ways in amicable circumstances and give a quietus to the rancor on account of disagreements, and lead a peaceful life. The third petitioner who is present would also confirm the filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage.
7. This court has perused the complaint and FIR. Though the complaint alleges manhandling there is no narration of the complainant having suffered any physical injury nor is there any medical records to corroborate the same. The entire complaint refers to oral humiliation and use of un- parliamentary and abusive language. There is no material demonstrating the commission of any heinous offence that would shock the collective conscious of the society nor is there any allegation of using deadly weapons or causing of any grievous injury.
8. In that view of the matter and keeping the age of the parties in mind, this court is of the opinion that the instant case is an appropriate case for the court to entertain the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint. If the parties are made to linger around the courts, it would only further aggravate the disagreements and would further no purpose would be served in directing the proceedings to be taken to its logical conclusion as even on merits this court does not see any possibility of any conviction and the entire process would be an abuse of process of law.
9. Hence, allowing the petition would secure the ends of justice in the light of the principles 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, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed 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.”
10. The instant petitions are required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in C.C. No.22956/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending on the file of Hon’ble VI ACMM, Bengaluru stands quashed in so far as it pertains to petitioner/Accused Nos.1 to 5.
In view of disposal of the petition, I.A. 1/2018 for stay in Crl.P. No.7630/2018 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs* CT-HR