Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1485 (KAR)

Deepthi R. Menon v. State of Karnataka

2017-11-09

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner No.1 is present before the court and she files Power of Attorney for petitioner No.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner is also present before the court. Respondent No.2 and her counsel are present before the court. 2. The parties have filed a joint memo stating that the parties have entered into a compromise. Therefore, both of them have no objection for quashing of the proceedings in connection with CC No.177/2017 arising out of Crime No.273/2016 pending on the file of the Addl. CJM, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under sections 507, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. The learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent No.2 are also present before the court. The parties have filed a joint Memo narrating the settlement between themselves. There is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings, as the matter is arising out of matrimonial dispute between the parties to the proceedings. The matter went before the Bangalore Mediation Centre and there, they have compromised the matter and entered into an agreement. 4. At this stage, it is worth to note here a decision rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ], wherein the Apex Court has held thus:- "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 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. ............." 5. It is also worth to note here the subsequent decision rendered in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others -vs- Babita Raghuvanshi and another reported in [ (2013) 4 SCC 58 ], wherein the Apex Court, particularly referring to the matrimonial disputes, has laid down a law that the court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to quash the proceedings where exclusively they are pertaining to matrimonial disputes, which reads 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 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 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 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 said facts and circumstances of the case, this case also falls under the category as mentioned in the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings. 7. Keeping in view of the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this court has applied its mind to the factual matrix of this case and found that the dispute is basically a private and personal in nature, and the parties have resolved their entire conflict between themselves. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in CC No.177/2017 (arising out of Crime No.273/2016) on the file of the Additional C.J.M., Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 507, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC is hereby quashed.