Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 871 (KAR)

Vinay Gopal v. State of Karnataka

2014-10-09

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2014
Judgment : 1. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are present who are the father and mother of petitioner No.1. Respondent No.2 - Smt. Nandini N. is also present before the Court. Perused the records. 2. The petitioners' Counsel submits that the parties have compromised the matter before the II Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court at Bangalore in Crl. Mis. No.58/2010 resolving all the disputes. A Joint Memo for settlement has also filed before the said Court. The certified copy of the said Joint Memo is also produced before this Court. 3. It is categorically stated that due to irreconcilable differences and incompatibility of the temperaments, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have been living separately since 01.01.2007. Though their marriage was solemnized on 20.10.2006 and in spite of best effort of the elders and well wishers, the differences between the parties did not yield any solution. Hence, both the parties have decided to get themselves withdraw from the conjugal relationship. Therefore, they have entered into compromise. In the meantime, when the dispute arose between the parties, it appears the 2nd respondent has also filed a complaint in FIR Crime No. 88/2009 which culminated in C.C. No. 10152/2012 pending on the file of the learned 2nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. As the entire disputes have been resolved between the parties in the Joint Memo filed before the 2nd Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Bangalore in Crl. Mis. No.58/2010 the respondent herein has admitted and accepted to withdraw all the allegations made against each other and also to withdraw C.C. No.10152/2012 as she has no grievance against the 1st petitioner herein. 4. It is also seen from the records that in M.C. No. 1515/2009 the 4th Additional Family Court, Bangalore vide orders dated 30th November 2011 granted a decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner therein who is respondent No.2 in this petition. 5. In view of the above said circumstances, it is clear that the parties have resolved their conflict between themselves and the entire disputes between them have been settled. By virtue of the admission of the 2nd respondent herein that she would withdraw the case filed against the 1st petitioner, the present petition is filed for quashing of the entire proceedings in the said Criminal Case. 6. By virtue of the admission of the 2nd respondent herein that she would withdraw the case filed against the 1st petitioner, the present petition is filed for quashing of the entire proceedings in the said Criminal Case. 6. On the previous date of hearing the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Trial Court has issued warrant against the 1st petitioner herein and he is not appearing before the Trial Court. Therefore, his presence for the compromise is absolutely necessary before this Court. In order to ascertain whether his presence is necessary and if so, why he should appear before this Court. The Court has ordered to keep the 2nd respondent present before this Court. The 2nd respondent Smt. Nandini N. is present before this Court. She has admitted the compromise between herself and the 1st petitioner herein and also admitted the joint memo filed before the Court as detailed above and also the divorce order passed by the Family Court and she has no objection to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. When the matter has been compromised between the parties long back and the appearance of the accused i.e. petitioner No.1 before this Court, in my opinion, is not necessary as it is submitted that he is gainfully employed in United States of America and it would be very difficult for him to get the leave and as well as it is highly expensive to come before this Court. 8. It is the 2nd respondent who has filed the complaint against the 1st petitioner and others, when she herself is present before the Court and submitted about the compromise entered into between herself and 1st petitioner and she has no objection to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, I don't find any legal impediment to pass the orders in accordance with law. 9. In view of the compromise between the parties, the conflict has already been resolved and the 2nd respondent has married again and she is living with her husband happily and therefore, the parties have to live happily in future. In order to facilitate them, the pendency of the Criminal Cases should not come in their way. Therefore, no legal impediment to this Court to quash the proceedings. 10. In order to facilitate them, the pendency of the Criminal Cases should not come in their way. Therefore, no legal impediment to this Court to quash the proceedings. 10. In this regard, it is worth to note a decision of the Apex Court reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58 in the case of: Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and another, the Apex Court has ruled 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 CrPC. 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 CrPC 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. 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 CrPC 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 CrPC 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." 11. In view of the above said decision and facts and circumstances of this particular case, the presence of the 1st petitioner before this Court is dispensed with. The 2nd and 3rd petitioner and 2nd respondent who are present before the Court and they have admitted the compromise between themselves. Therefore, the entire proceedings pending before the Criminal Court deserves to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, the proceedings pending before the 2nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C. No. 10152/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. is hereby quashed.