IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO.9400/2017 BETWEEN 1. VINOD KUMAR, S/O MANJUNATH G., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO 344, 66TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 010 2. MANJUNATH G., S/O R. JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO 344, 66TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 010 3. SMT. DEVICHANDRA, W/O MANJUANTH G., AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO 344, 66TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU- 560010 4. HARIANAND, S/O KRISHNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO 916, 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, BASAVANAGAR, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 037 5. SMT. PUSHPA HARI, W/O HARIANAND, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO 916, 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, BASAVANAGAR, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 037.
6. PRAKASH, S/O BABU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO 634, B-22, 1ST FLOOR, B D A FLAT AUSTIN TOWN, BENGALURU – 560047 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. TEJAS N., ADV. FOR SRI. HASHMATH PASHA, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAGADI ROAD POLICE, BENGALURU – 560 068 REP. BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR .
2. DIVYA RAJ, W/O VINOD KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO 344, 66TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1 SRI. C. S. SRINIVAS, ADV. FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.13527/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METRPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.86/2015 OF MAGADI ROAD POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3, 4, 7 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Sri C.S. Srinivas, learned counsel files vakalath for second respondent.
2. The petitioners and their counsel, second respondent and her counsel are present before the court. The second respondent has filed an affidavit stating that due to some family differences, that led to filing of criminal complaint against the petitioner u/s.498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and registration of a case in CC No.13527/2015 arising out of Crime No.89/2015 pending on the file of the III Addl. CMM, Bengaluru.
3. It is also submitted by the parties that other cases in MC No.1258/2015 and C.Misc. No.502/2016 have also been compromised between the parties. A Joint Memo is filed before this court by both the parties recording their compromise.
4. It is worth to refer a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court 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.
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.”
5. 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.”
6. On careful perusal of the factual aspects of this case, essentially the case arose out of the family dispute between the husband and wife i.e., the first petitioner and the second respondent, and the parties have resolved their entire dispute between themselves and they would like to live happily hereinafter. In such an eventuality, continuation of criminal proceedings would amounts to abuse of process of the court. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
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 decisions. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in CC No.13527/2015 on the file of the III Addl. CMM, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.86/2015 of Magadi Road Police Station for the offence punishable under section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*