Karnataka High Court
Shri.Chandru S/O Narayana vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 1344, AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 1348
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102369/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHANDRU S/O. NARAYANA,
AGE 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. 1ST CROSS, OLD TOWN,
BHUTANAGUDI, BHADRAVATI,
DIST. SHIVAMOGGA.
... PETITIONER
(By SRI. V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY PSI SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION,
DHARWAD, REPTD. BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
2. KUMARI DIANA D/O. ROBERT MIRAJKAR,
AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. 1ST CROSS, SADHANKARI,
DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI. R.R.NAYAK, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. AMIRKHAN A PATHAN, ADV. FOR R2 (NOC)
SRI. M.F.ANGADI, ADV. FOR R2)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEDINGS INITIATED
IN C.C.NO.200 OF 2017 (P.C.NO.32 OF 2016) PENDING ON THE
FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC, DHARWAD AS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 354(D), 504, 506 OF IPC READ WITH SECTION
66(C) (D) OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner who has been arrayed as an accused in proceedings in C.C.No.200/2017 (PC No.32/2016) pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge & Principal JMFC, Dharwad has filed the present petition seeking to quash the proceedings initiated for the offences punishable under Sections 354 (D), 504, 506 of IPC r/w. Section 56(C) & 56(D) of the Information Technology Act.
2. The petitioner is the husband of respondent No.2. It is stated that, marriage of the petitioner with 3 respondent No.2 was solemnized before the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Bhadravathi.
3. On 01.02.2016, respondent No.2 had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable as afore stated.
4. It is stated that, the petitioner had been harassing the respondent No.2 and complaint in that regard was filed in P.C.No.32/2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & Principal JMFC, Dharwad. The learned Magistrate after receipt of the complaint had directed for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. pursuant to the investigation Charge sheet came to be filed and accordingly case came to be registered in C.C.No.200/2017 and summons was issued to the petitioner.
5. The 2nd respondent had filed O.S.No.22/2013 seeking the relief of declaration that she had not married the petitioner. In the meanwhile, petitioner had filed a 4 case under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act in M.C.No.175/2015 seeking the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. By order dated 21.04.2018, O.S.No.22/2013 has been dismissed whereas M.C.No.175/2015 seeking restitution of conjugal rights came to be allowed. It is stated that, during the pendency of proceedings in M.C.No.181/2019 memorandum of petition under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act has been filed seeking for dissolution of marriage. It is stated that as per the averments of the petition as contained in paragraph No.4(b), the respondent No.2 herein is required to withdraw the criminal case filed by her which is pending in C.C.No.200/2017 or to co-operate with the petitioner herein to get the proceedings quashed by way of disposal of the present criminal petition.
6. Both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were present in Court on 01.08.2019 and respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit stating that she has settled the 5 matrimonial dispute with the petitioner by presenting a compromise petition before the Family Court, Dharwad. It is further stated that in the light of the terms of settlement agreed upon the respondent No.2 would not pursue the complaint filed by her against the petitioner. The respondent No.2 has withdrawn all allegations against the petitioner and states that she has no objection to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.200/2017. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit stating that dispute has been settled and affirms the submissions made by the respondent No.2.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the interest of justice it would be appropriate to quash the proceedings taking note of the stand of the respondent No.2 and continuance of the proceedings with respect to a private wrong is not tenable. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the Judgment of the State of Madhya 6 Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in 2019 CRL. L.J. 1862.
8. The learned HCGP states that appropriate orders could be passed considering that the matter relates to a matrimonial dispute and in the light of the stand taken by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 in the affidavits filed before the Court.
9. It is to be noted that, offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC are the offences that could be compounded at the instance of the person insulted/intimidated. With respect to the offence under Section 354 the same is compoundable by the woman who has been assaulted with permission of the Court. In the light of the above facts, taking note of the stand of both the parties and also noting that the complaint was filed with respect to a matrimonial dispute and that the alleged offences essentially arise with respect to a matrimonial relationship and the possibility of conviction being bleak 7 the continuation of the proceedings would cause serious prejudice to both the parties. It would be in the interest of justice to put an end to the proceedings. The continuance of the criminal proceedings despite settlement of the dispute by way of compromise between the victim and the wrong doer would serve no purpose. Taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the Case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in 2019 CRL. L.J. 1862 and also noticing the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, it would be appropriate to quash the proceedings before the Court below in order to secure the ends of justice.
10. It is to be noted that the proceedings in C.C.No.200/2017 is still at an early stage. The alleged offences are with respect to matters arising out of a matrimonial relationship. The offences alleged to have 8 been committed are not heinous and are in the nature of a private wrong. The above facts fall within the ambit of cases where, in proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the pending proceedings could be quashed as has been adverted to by the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in 2019 CRL. L.J. 1862.
Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.200/2017 (P.C.No.32/2016) pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & Prl. JMFC, Dharwad for the offences punishable under Section 354(D), 504, 506 of IPC read with Section 66 (C) (D) of Information Technology Act, are quashed and set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE *Svh/-