ORDER : Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.11848/2014 which proceedings are pending on the file of the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, are before this Court for quashing of the said proceedings. 2. First petitioner herein married the 2nd respondent-complainant on 18.10.2010. On account of certain disputes having arisen between them, second respondent-wife lodged a complaint before Hulimavu Police alleging that at the time of her marriage her parents had given an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and gold jewelry to the petitioners and second petitioner, mother-in–law had harassed the complainant with a demand for additional dowry and they continued to harass her. She has further alleged that first petitioner was in the habit of consuming alcohol and harassing the complainant under intoxication. She has further alleged that she was made to carry out all the household chores at the instance of a lady by name Ms.Radha and first petitioner used assault the complainant. She has further stated that on account of the parents of the complainant not being able to comply with the demand for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/, she was thrown out of matrimonial house and inspite of all efforts made by friends and relatives, to patch up the differences, it did not yield any positive result. 3. I have heard the arguments of Smt.Chandini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Suresh Kumar, advocate for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the State. Though, second respondent is represented by Sri. N Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel, none have appeared. 4. 3. I have heard the arguments of Smt.Chandini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Suresh Kumar, advocate for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the State. Though, second respondent is represented by Sri. N Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel, none have appeared. 4. It is the contention of Smt. Chandini, learned counsel for the petitioner that dispute between first petitioner and second respondent herein was a matrimonial dispute and all the allegations made by her in her complaint lodged before the jurisdictional police is false and she contends that the complainant herself had filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by filing a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in M.C.No.660/2017, which came to be referred to Mediation Centre and a settlement was arrived at between the parties, which was also accepted by the Family Court, Bengaluru and there has been dissolution of the marriage by grant of a decree of divorce on 22.11.2017 and as such, continuation of proceedings against petitioners will be an abuse of process of law and petitioners are now being made to undergo ordeal trial despite second respondent-complainant having agreed in the settlement agreement filed before the Family Court that she would be withdrawing her complaint, she had refused to do so. Hence, she seeks for allowing the petition and prays for quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.11848/2014. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned HCGP appearing for the State, it would emerge from the records that there is no dispute to the fact that first petitioner and second respondent herein were husband and wife and second respondent herein had filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage solemnized on 18.10.2010 between herself and first petitioner by filing a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in M.C.No.660/2017, which proceeding was pending before the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. In the said proceedings, matter came to be referred to Mediation and with the assistance of the mediator, parties entered into a Memorandum of settlement, which came to be reduced into writing and an agreement was drawn under Section 89 of CPC read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation Rules), 2005, which is at Annexure-E. A perusal of the same would indicate that both parties have entered into a settlement as per the terms set out thereunder and one such term of settlement entered into between the parties which relates to the present proceedings or which has bearing on the present petitions is found in clause 7 of said settlement and it reads as under: ”7. The petitioner has filed a complaint before the Magistrate and is pending before the CCH: 46, Bangalore in S.C.No.1246/2014. The petitioner agrees to have the proceedings dropped and/or shall assist the respondent in getting the said proceedings quashed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the event the respondent files a petition u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The parties shall withdraw all other litigations if any against each other.” Settlement as referred to above was arrived at between the parties on 12.10.2017. Pursuant to the same, present petition came to be filed by petitioners on 07.12.2017. In the interregnum period, the jurisdictional Family Court on being satisfied with the genuineness of the settlement arrived at by the parties, by order dated 22.11.2017 accepted the same, after enquiry with the parties and a finding came to be recorded by the Family Court about its satisfaction, which reads as under: “On enquiry the parties submitted that they stand by the memorandum of agreement entered into between them and they admit the terms and conditions incorporated in the said memorandum of agreement as true and correct. After hearing this court is convinced and satisfied that the said memorandum of agreement entered into between the parties by voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence and with free consent. 6. After hearing this court is convinced and satisfied that the said memorandum of agreement entered into between the parties by voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence and with free consent. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 , has held that where overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour is found in the proceedings relating to the alleged criminal offences and such offences arise out of matrimonial disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute, High Court would be justified in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It has been held by the Apex Court to the following effect: “59. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens the wellbeing of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc., or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed. 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summerised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.,(i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.,; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 7. Keeping the above said principles as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when facts on hand are examined, it would disclose that dispute between the parties relates to the marriage which came to be solemnized on 18.10.2010 between first petitioner and second respondent herein. Keeping the above said principles as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when facts on hand are examined, it would disclose that dispute between the parties relates to the marriage which came to be solemnized on 18.10.2010 between first petitioner and second respondent herein. It is the second respondent (wife) herein who had filed the complaint and it is she who also filed a petition for divorce or dissolution of said marriage solemnized on 18.10.2010 by filing a petition in M.C.No.660/2017 which culminated in a Settlement having been entered into between the parties and under the said settlement, complainant had expressed her clear intention and desire that she would be withdrawing all allegations made against the petitioners herein. In fact, she has also stated that she would also assist the petitioners herein in getting the proceedings pending in S.C.No.1246/2014 (C.C.No.11848/2014) i.e., present proceedings being closed/quashed. However, she has failed to appear before this Court though served. Her, Advocate has also remained absent. On the other hand, learned Judge of the Family Court while accepting the Memorandum of settlement has enquired with both parties viz., petitioners herein as well as complainant i.e., second respondent herein, as to whether they admit the terms and conditions of the memorandum of agreement to be true and on being convinced about genuineness in such agreement having been entered into between the parties and same being voluntarily without any coercion, undue influence and with free consent, it came to be accepted by the learned Family Judge. 8. In the light of the afore stated facts and taking into consideration that petitioners as well as second respondent having resolved their matrimonial dispute by filing a petition for divorce and settling their disputes as per the Memorandum of agreement/settlement, Annexure-E, continuation of present proceedings initiated by second respondent against the petitioners would not serve the ends of justice. On the other hand, it would cause undue hardship and petitioners would have undergo ordeal trial which would not serve any purpose and it would be waste of precious judicial time. Hence, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER (1) Criminal Petition is hereby allowed. (2) Proceedings pending in S.C.No.1246/2014 (C.C.No.11848/2014 against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 498(A),314 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on the file of the XLV Addl. Hence, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER (1) Criminal Petition is hereby allowed. (2) Proceedings pending in S.C.No.1246/2014 (C.C.No.11848/2014 against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 498(A),314 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on the file of the XLV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed and petitioners are acquitted of said offences. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.1/18 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is hereby rejected.