Karnataka High Court
Shri. Nagayya S/O Hampayya Hiremath vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101242 OF 2018
BETWEEN
1. SHRI. NAGAYYA
S/O HAMPAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 77 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED PROFESSOR,
R/O: VIDYANAGAR,
HUNGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587118.
2. SMT.NIRMALA
W/O NAGAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 70 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: VIDYANAGAR,
HUNGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587118.
3. SHRI.JAYADEV
S/O NAGAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
R/O: VIDYANAGAR,
HUNGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587118. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)
:2:
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
ASSISTANT STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, DHARWAD,
MAHILA P.S., HUBBALLI.
2. PRABHAVATI
W/O VIJAY HIREMATH
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: MANAGER IN
KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK,
NOW AT MADHURA COLONY BRANCH,
HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. A.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
*********
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR
CHARGE SHEET AND PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THESE
PETITIONERS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, DHARWAD, IN
C.C.NO.941/2011, FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 498-A, 323, 504
& 506 OF IPC, 3 & 4 OF DP ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:3:
ORDER
Sri. A.B. Patil, learned advocate, files power on behalf of respondent No.2.
2. Shri Nagayya, Smt. Nirmala and Shri Jayadev, the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are present before the Court. Smt. Prabhavati, respondent No.2-complainant is also present along with their counsel.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 are also present.
4. Both the parties to the proceedings i.e., the petitioners and respondent No.2 have filed an application under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for having entered into a compromise in the matter. It is also accompanied by a :4: Joint Affidavit of both the parties i.e., the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 and respondent No.2- complainant. The said application is signed by all the parties to the proceedings and it is endorsed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties also.
5. In the Joint Affidavit, it is stated that marital differences/dispute between the parties have been amicably settled and the complainant is not interested in continuing the proceedings in C.C. No.941/2011 and seeks permission to compound the offences amicably between the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 and the respondent No.2-complainant. It is submitted by respondent No.2-complainant that, in view of the compromise that has been entered into between the parties, she has no objection for the proceedings in C.C. No.941/2011 being quashed.
6. I have carefully and cautiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing :5: for the parties and perused the records. I am conscious of the fact that while quashing the proceedings, the Court has to keep in mind the power of the Criminal Court as contemplated under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and the Court is guided solely and squarely thereunder, but the quashing of the offences or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the offenders and the victim is not the same thing as that of compounding an offence under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble High Court has a very wide power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of offences and to quash the proceedings. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2012 Cri.L.J. 4934.
7. Keeping in view the above proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and, as the parties have amicably settled the dispute and that the offences :6: are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and as there are no criminal antecedents alleged against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4, the compromise being in the best interest of all the parties, is accepted.
In view of the acceptance of the compromise, the proceedings pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharwad, in C.C. No.941/2011 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby quashed, and the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are acquitted of the aforesaid offences. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms