Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 875 (KAR)

Kamala Bai Tebha v. Kalpana

2014-10-09

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2014
Judgment : 1. Sri H.E. Gundewade, learned counsel has filed vakalath on behalf of first respondent complainant. 2. Smt. Kamala Bai Tebha, the petitioner herein and Smt. Kalpana, the first respondent complainant herein along with their counsel present before the Court and they filed a joint memo stating that they have compounded the offences punishable u/s.498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the first respondent has filed a criminal case against her husband by name Dilip Tebha and also against the present petitioner Smt. Kamalabai Teba and another by name Lokchand Tebha. It is further submitted that in CC No.2411/2009, the VII Addl. CMM, Bangalore, took cognizance and the accused persons appeared before the court. During the pendency of the case, A2 -Lokchand Tebha was absconding and the case has been split up and thereafter he died. The present petitioner is the 3rd accused in the said case. The petitioner and the first respondent have now compounded the matter and the first respondent has no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein. The petitioner is no other than the Mother-in-law of the first respondent. The petitioner is a very aged lady and lost her husband. It is stated in the joint memo that at the intervention of elders of both the sides, the parties have resolved their conflict and amicably settled the disputes. Therefore, respondent No.1 withdraws all the allegations made against the petitioner herein. 4. In view of the above said joint memo and also the parties who are present before the court have accepted the contents of the Joint Memo and they have no objection to quash the proceedings, I do not have any legal impediment to quash the proceedings. 5. Before granting permission to compound the offences, it is relevant to refer to the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others -vs-Babita Raghuvanshi and another reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the provisions of Section 482 and 320 of Cr.PC, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that - "The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of 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 of 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 of Cr.PC for quashing of the criminal proceedings. 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 of 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. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the decision cited supra, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings as prayed for, as the matter is relating to matrimonial dispute. Since the dispute is purely private in nature between the husband and wife, in order to facilitate the parties to live happily, the joint memo has to be accepted. Accordingly, following Order is passed: The Petition is allowed. All further proceedings and investigation in respect of Crime No.244/2008 (( CC No.2411/2009) for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of the IX Addl. CMM, Bangalore, are hereby quashed.