KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
JUSTICE K.N. Phaneendra
PARAMESHWAR J. & ORS. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. On 2 JULY 2018
Law Point:
Section 482 — Sections 498A, 506 — Cruelty — Matter is essentially arising out of domestic relationship between parties — Compromise petition filed by parties is accepted — Proceedings quashed.
JUDGEMENT
1. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are present before the Court. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are no other than the relatives of the 1st petitioner. The petitioners and respondent No. 2 submit before the Court that, by way a Compromise Petition, they have settled the matter between themselves, therefore, the 2nd respondent has no objection to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 55077/2014 registered against the petitioners and now pending on the file of the 10th ACMM, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru.
2. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, Petitioner No. 1 submitted that he is making payment of Rs. 5.00 Lakh by way of Demand Draft No. 338668 dated 25.6.2018 to the 2nd respondent, as per the terms of the compromise between them. The said Demand Draft was handed over to the 2nd Respondent and the 2nd respondent received the same.
3. The Compromise Petition filed by the parties is hereby recorded. Perused the charge sheet papers. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 506 and 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There is no dispute the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent are the husband and wife respectively and due to some matrimonial differences between themselves, it appears the 2nd respondent has lodged a complaint in Crime No. 786/2013 for the aforesaid offences punishable under Sections 506 and 498A of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ( for short, D.P. Act), which culminated in C.C. No. 55077/2014 on the file of the 19th ACMM, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru. As the matter is essentially arising out of domestic relationship between the parties and as the same has already been settled between the parties, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings.
4. At this stage, it is worth to note here a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, VII (2012) SLT 171=IV (2012) DLT (CRL.) 104 (SC)=IV (2012) CCR 115 (SC)=(2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has given certain guidelines with regard to quashing of the proceedings whenever the parties have entered into compromise. The relevant portion of the said decision reads thus:
“Held—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 Section 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 Section 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.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
“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 is 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…”
5. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited decision, I am of the opinion that, the factual aspects of this case also falls within the categories of the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings in the said criminal case, as prayed for by the parties. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed. The Compromise Petition filed by the parties is accepted. Consequently, the case in C.C. No. 55077/2014 (arising out of Crime No. 786/2013 of HAL Police Station) registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, pending on the file of the 10th ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, and all further proceedings therein, so far as these petitioners concerned, are hereby quashed.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment