IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 5214/2016 BETWEEN 1. HARISH, S/O RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 2. MANJESH @ MANJA, S/O LAKSHMAN GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT HADENAHALLY VILLAGE, BINDIGANAVILE, NAGAMANGALA TALUK – 571 432, MANDYA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SURENDRA KUMAR N., ADV. ) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE BINDIGANAVILE POLICE, NAGAMANGALA TALUK – 571 432 MANDYA DISTRICT.
2. H. N. LAKSHMAN GOWDA, S/O NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 3. KRISHNE GOWDA, S/O JAVARE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 4. SUNANDAMMA, W/O KRISHNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT HADENAHALLY VILLAGE, BINDIGANAVILE, NAGAMANGALA TALUK – 571 432 MANDYA DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1 SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR A., ADV. FOR R2 TO R4) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.491/2010 AND THE FILE OF THE Sr. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NAGAMANGALA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324, 504, 326 R/W 34 OF IPC AND THEREBY PERMITTED TO COMPOUND THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 326 AND OTHER OFFENCES CHARGE SHEETED IN C.C.NO.491/2010.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners 1 & 2 are arrayed as A2 and A4 in CC No.379/2006, which is re-numbered as CC No.491/2010 pending on the file of the Senior Civil judge, Nagamangala for the offence punishable under section 324, 504, 326 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Petitioners and their counsel, respondent Nos.2 to 4 and their counsel are present before the Court.
Heard the parties and their learned counsels and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent - State.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties that they have compounded the offences and settled their dispute between themselves. They have filed an application before the trial Court seeking permission to compromise the matter. The said application came to be rejected on the ground that the offence punishable u/s.326 of IPC is non compoundable even with the permission of the court.
4. It is evident from the records and also from the submission made by the parties to the proceedings and also their counsels, that all the parties to the proceedings are of the same village and they are related to each other. Due to some family differences, they quarreled each other, which led to filing of the present case against the petitioners and others.
5. At this stage, it is worth to note here a decision rendered in [(2012) 10 SCC 303], between Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, wherein the Hon’ble 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.
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.”
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. On perusal of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, and the guidelines in the above cited decisions, it is clear that, when the party submits that they are related to each other and they are residents of the same village, in order to facilitate them to live happily in future, it is just and necessary to accept the terms of compromise entered into between themselves. Hence, Compromise Petition filed by them u/s.320(1) and (2) read with Section 482 of of Cr.P.C. filed before this court deserves to be accepted.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, CC NO.491/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala for the offence punishable under sections 324, 504, 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners herein are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*