IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO.2332/2018 C/W. CRL.P. NO.2333/2018 BETWEEN YASHI JAIN, 29 YEARS W/O ANKIT JAIN, R/O FLAT NO 101 1ST FLOOR, COMFORT GANGALAXMI APARTMENT, 5TH CROSS WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE 560 027 ... PETITIONER (COMMON IN BOTH CASES) (BY SRI. KAPIL DIXIT, ADVOCATE) AND IN CRL.P. NO.2332/2018 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001 2. ANKIT JAIN, S/O SRI RAJKUMAR JAIN AGED ABOUT30 YEARS, R/AT NO.19 2ND CROSS, AYYAPPA GARDEN, ADUGODI BENGALURU 3. RAJKUMAR JAIN @ RAJ KUMAR S/O KALU RAM JAIN, AGED ABOUT 51 YRS., 4. SMT. SAREETHA DEVI JAIN @ SAREETHA W/O RAJKUMAR, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.116 1ST FLOOR, PANCHASHEELA PARK SAIBABA DELHI, NCR, GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH 5. SURESH JAIN S/O KALU RAM JAIN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS GARMENTS BUSINESS, NO.1A POCKET, ASHOK VIHAR PHASE-2, NEW DELHI … RESPONDENTS IN CRL.P. NO. 2333/2018 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001 YESHWANTHAPURA P.S.
Page 1 and 2 retyped and replaced vide court order dated 08.03.2019 2. ANKIT JAIN S/O SRI RAJKUMAR JAIN AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 629/22, 14TH A MAIN, 1ST BLOCK GOKUL LAYOUT, MATHIKERI BENGALURU – 560 054 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S. Y. KUMBAR, AND SRI. SHIVASHANKAR S. K., ADVS. FOR R2.) THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.16183/2015 PENDING BEFORE THE XXIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE INITIATED UNDER FIR NO.422/2014 REGISTERED AT YESHWANTHAPURA P.S., AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER SECTIONS 471,420,468 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITIONS.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondent No.1 – State in both the cases. Learned counsel Sri Shiva Shankar files vakalath for respondent No.2.
2. The Petitioner in both these Criminal Petitions, Mrs. Yashi Jain, is present before the court and she has filed affidavit reporting that the matter has been compromised between the parties i.e., the complainant as well as the respondents/petitioner and the eye witnesses herein. The petitions are filed by her seeking quashing of the proceedings in SC No.803/2014 on the file of the 65th Addl. CC & Sessions Judge, now pending on the file of the 71st Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 468, 307 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and also for quashing of the CC No.16183/2015 pending on the file of the 24th ACMM, Bengaluru arising out of FIR No.422/2014.
3. The petitioner has filed the above said petitions in fact on the basis that the parties have compromised the matter and the dispute has been completely resolved in a divorce petition filed by respondent No.2, the husband of the petitioner in MC No.3011/2016. The petitioner has also furnished the compromise petition filed before the said Family Court in MC No.3011/2016, wherein the parties have arrived at a compromise wherein at paragraph 10 of the compromise petition, the respondent therein i.e., the petitioner herein has categorically accepted and agreed to withdraw or participate to close all the criminal cases filed against the petitioner immediately after reporting this settlement and closing all the criminal cases filed against the respondent herein immediately after reporting the settlement before the MC Court. The said compromise petition was placed for consideration on the file of the III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in the said case and the court has recorded the compromise and however ordered and decreed to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent.
4. Before this court also, re-iterating the petition averments, the petitioner has filed two separate affidavits reiterating the compromise between the parties. There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner is the wife of the second respondent and due to some mis- conception of fact, the complaints have been lodged by the petitioner against the second respondent and his family members. Now, in view of the divorce taken place between the petitioner and the second respondent, the entire conflict between the parties have been resolved though the offences u/s.307 of IPC is charged in SC No.803/2014 is heinous and serious in nature. In view of the compromise between the parties, considering their relationship, I am of the opinion that the compromise has to be accepted.
5. This Court relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 between GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHER, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus -
“Inherent power of High Court under S.482 to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. It is further held that, power of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding of 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, 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. But criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing – Offences arising from commercial financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute, High Court may quash criminal proceedings – High Court, in such cases, must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between parties and whether to secure ends of justice, it is appropriate the criminal case it put to an end. If such question(s) are answered in the affirmative, High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”
6. At this stage, it is worth to note hear a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 [ Narinder Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the guidelines in respect of accepting the compromise entered into between the parties pertaining to offence under Section 307 of IPC. The court under the peculiar circumstances of the case has observed that, depending upon the factual aspects of each case, if the court is of the opinion that such compromise can be recorded, then there is no embargo under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. for the court to record such compromise in the interest of justice.
7. Among the above said cases, in one of the case, the court has come to the conclusion that the offence punishable u/s.307 of IPC is heinous and serious in nature and has some impact on the society in spite of that the Hon'ble Apex Court has said that the discretion vests with the court to – speak the circumstance of the particular case and if the court feels that the compromise will set all the disputes between the parties at rest, it will virtually facilitate the parties to compromise the matter and thereafter, in such circumstance to avoid future obligations and future litigations between the parties, the court can accept such terms.
8. In view of the above said dictum and particularly the factual matrix available in this particular case as I have already narrated, it is a fit case where the parties can be permitted to compromise the matter. Hence, the affidavits filed by the petitioner and the second respondent are hereby accepted. And consequently, I pass the following:
ORDER Both the petitions are allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in (1) SC No.803/2014 pending on the file of the 71st City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 307, 506, 323, 325 of IPC and also u/s.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; and (2) CC No.16183/2015 pending on the file of the 24th Addl. CMM, Bengaluru, arising out of FIR No.422/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 471, 420, 468 of IPC; are hereby quashed so far as the respective petitioners are concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*