IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2880/2018 BETWEEN:
SRI. VEERAIAH BATWALA @ VEERAIAH S/O. VEERASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.13, 2ND CROSS, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, SHR COLLEGE ROAD, MUNEKOLALA, MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU-560 037 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHIVAKUMAR P, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MARATHAHALLI POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU.
2. KUM. LALITHA C. SHETTALI D/O. CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.571, 2ND CROSS, ROOM NO.22, BEHIND BBMP OFFICE, NEAR KARNATAKA BANK, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU-560 103 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, HCGP R-1; SRI.A.G.KRISHNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT MARATHAHALLI POLICE IN CR.NO.495/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 343, 504, 506, 376, 420, 323 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Second respondent herein lodged a complaint with Marathahalli Police Station against petitioner alleging that she had met the petitioner about 4 years back and they had developed intimacy and on the pretext of marrying her, he had sexually abused her and when she insisted for marrying her, which he had assured, petitioner had refused on the ground that accused parents would not accept the marriage proposal. She has also alleged that she was physically assaulted by the petitioner/accused.
2. On the basis of such complaint lodged by second respondent on 31.10.2017, Cr.No.495/2017 was registered by the first respondent against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 343, 420, 376, 323 of IPC. Hence, for quashing of said proceedings, accused/petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned Advocates appearing for the petitioner and second respondent have filed a joint memo enclosing the affidavits of the petitioner and second respondent, whereunder they have clearly stated that they intend to get married and second respondent is withdrawing all the allegations made against the petitioner and she does not intend to prosecute the complaint filed by her and submits that she has no objection for quashing the proceedings pending in Cr.No.495/2017.
4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records it would indicate that in the affidavit dated 19.12.2018 filed by second respondent she has clearly admitted that she intends to withdraw the allegations made against the petitioner and she is getting married to petitioner. As could be seen from the allegations made in the complaint dated 31.10.2017 second respondent has clearly admitted that she was in physical relationship with the petitioner for about 4 years and at that point of time there was no force or threat.
5. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held where the parties have reached settlement and prayer is made for quashing of criminal proceedings the guiding factor in such cases would be; (i) to secure the ends of justice; (ii) to prevent any abuse of the process of any court. Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that where heinous and serious offences are alleged, which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society, such offences should not be allowed to be compounded or compromised and proceedings should not be quashed.
6. In a recent judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court in Crl.A.No.1443/2018 in the matter of DR.DHRUVARAM MURLIDHAR SONAR vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. disposed of on 22.11.2018 has held that there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. It has further held in such cases it has to be carefully examined whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to marry only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls within the ambit of cheating or deception.
7. Keeping this dicta laid down by the Apex Court in mind when the allegations made in the complaint as well as affidavit dated 19.12.2018 filed by the second respondent/complainant are perused, it would clearly indicate that it was a consensual sex between petitioner and second respondent and both being young, have now realized the realities of life and having agreed to live in peace and harmony by entering into marriage. They have also sworn to the said effect in the respective affidavits filed by them.
8. Parties are present before the Court and they have agreed and reiterated the contents urged by them in the respective affidavits. Second respondent submits that out of her own free will and volition, without any threat, force or coercion she has affixed her signature to the Joint Memo. To establish their identities, photocopy of identity cards issued by the statutory authorities have been produced along with the joint memo and in token of having identified them, learned Advocates have also affixed their signatures to the Joint Memo.
9. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that to secure the ends of justice if proceedings are allowed to be continued alleged relationship between petitioner and second respondent, which has now blossomed to the stage of both parties getting married, would be ruined or in other words, continuation of further proceedings would not sub- serve the ends of justice and it would be an abuse of process of law insofar as petitioner and second respondent are concerned.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in Crime No.495/2017 (now numbered as S.C.No.1783/2018) pending on the file of City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-54), Bengaluru, against petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 343, 420, 376, 323 of IPC, is hereby quashed.
(iii) Petitioner is acquitted of the said offences.
SD/- JUDGE DR