Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 942 (KAR)

Bhaskar D. Gowda v. State by Vijayanagara Police

2014-10-29

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioners 2 and 3 and the counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2 and her counsel are present before the Court. 2. This petition is filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C.No.17685/12 registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506(B) IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. It appears this Court has referred the parties to mediation before the Mediation Centre, Bangalore. The parties have entered into compromise and settled their entire conflict in this regard. It is stated in the compromise petition at Paragraph V that the petitioners approached this Hon'ble Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 seeking for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.17685/12. The said case is referred to Mediation. In Clause(VII) of the compromise petition, the parties have agreed in the following manner:- "In view of the said settlement the petitioners and 2nd respondent pray that the proceedings in CC.17685/12 and pending on the file of the Hon'ble I ACMM, Bangalore, be quashed in terms of the above agreement." 4. In view of the settlement, the petitioners and respondent No.2 pray that the proceedings in C.C.No.17685/12 pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, be quashed in terms of the compromise agreement. The agreement between the parties is taken on record and the parties have agreed to the contents of the said agreement. There is no illegality in compromising the matter between the parties. 5. Today, in compliance with Clause VI(6) of the mediation agreement, the petitioners are paying a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of the second respondent by way of Pay Order No.016725 dated 23.10.2014 drawn on Sri Rama Co-Operative Bank Limited, Malleshwaram, Bangalore and admits that Clause VI (6)(a) has already been complied with by the petitioners before the Family Court in M.C.No.3247/12. The respondent has acknowledged the said pay order before the Court. 6. In view of the above said circumstances and the parties having settled their conflict in its entirety and entered into compromise, they have no objection to quash these proceedings. 7. The respondent has acknowledged the said pay order before the Court. 6. In view of the above said circumstances and the parties having settled their conflict in its entirety and entered into compromise, they have no objection to quash these proceedings. 7. It is worth to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in (2013) 4 SCC 58 [Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others .vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and another] wherein it has held that in matrimonial disputes, if it is settled, proceedings in the criminal case can be quashed. Further, the Supreme Court as held as follows:- "The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC 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 FIR, 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, even effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, even 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 his relatives, accused under Sections 498-A, 406 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." 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the dispute between the parties is purely private and personal in nature. There is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings and it will have no societal impact. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that in order to enable the parties to live peacefully in future, the criminal petition deserves to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.17685/12 on the file of the I ACMM, Bangalore, is hereby quashed.