Karnataka High Court
Sri. Harsha Vardhann Prakash Namburi vs State Of Karnataka on 21 June, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
CRL.P.No.102713/2017
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102713/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. HARSHA VARDHANN PRAKASH NAMBURI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O NAMBURI KOTESWARA RAO,
R/O: D-12, PHASE-1, NPCIL, KAIGA TOWNSHIP,
MALAPUR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581400,
WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC OFFICER,
D EMPLOYEE ID NO.1625558,
NPCIL UNIT 1 AND 2,
KAIGA POWER GENERATING STATION,
KAIGA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581400.
2. NAMBURI KOESWARA RAO
AGE: 70 YEARS,
S/O. LATE DHARMAIAH,
R/AT: NO.2-583-A,
LAKSHMANA RAO PURAM,
COLLECTORS BUNGALOW CHILKALAPUDI POST,
MACHALIPATNAM-521002,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. JAYAMANI BHARATI
AGE: 67 YEARS,
W/O NAMBURI KOTESWARA RAO,
R/AT: NO.2-583-A,
LAKSHMANA RAO PURAM,
COLLECTORS BUNGALOW CHILKALAPUDI POST,
MACHALIPATNAM-521002,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SATISH G. RAIKAR AND SRI.SUBRAMANYAM.S,
ADVOCATE)
CRL.P.No.102713/2017
:2:
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
MALLAPURA POLICE STATION,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
2. SMT.SANDHYA MARPATLA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
W/O. HARSHA VARDHAN,
PRAKASH NAMBURI,
R/O: FLAT NO.204,
USHA KIRAN APARTMENTS,
NO.25, HAUDIN ROAD, ULSOOR,
BENGALURU-560042.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. M. V. V. RAMANNA & H. R. KAMBIYAVAR, ADVS. FOR R2)
--
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET ANNEXURE A-
1 & ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.235 OF 2012 (ANNEXURE-
C4) ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-II AT
KARWAR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
323, 498A READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND
4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961, AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners who are accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in C.C.No.235/2012 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC-II at Karwar CRL.P.No.102713/2017 :3: (hereinafter referred to as 'the Court below', for brevity), seeking quashing of the said criminal case, which was the result of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A R/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the D.P. Act', for short).
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, the present petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2 herein, whose marriage was solemnized on 02.02.2008. One week prior to the marriage, at the demand of the petitioners herein, who are the husband and in-laws of the complainant, a dowry of a sum of `10,00,000/- was paid to them. At the time of marriage, a gold weighing 391 grams in the form of ornaments and a Maruti car, a site property and a flat, though was in the name of the complainant, were all given as dowry. After marriage, while the complainant was in her matrimonial CRL.P.No.102713/2017 :4: home, she was subjected to cruelty by the present petitioners, who constantly were demanding her to get more valuables and cash in the form of dowry and to transfer immovable and movable properties in their name.
After investigation, respondent No.1 - police have filed the charge sheet against the present petitioners arraying them as accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A R/w. Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. The said case in C.C.No.235/2012 is pending in the Court below. The accused therein have sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in the said C.C.No.235/2012 by filing this petition.
3. Though this petition is listed for admission today, with the consent from both sides, the matter is taken up for its final disposal.
4. The learned counsel from both sides including the learned HCGP and the petitioner No.1 and respondent CRL.P.No.102713/2017 :5: No.2 in-person are present. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are identified by their respective counsels in the Court.
5. Both the learned counsels for petitioners and respondent No.2 jointly made a submission that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and that petitioner No.1 - husband and respondent No.2 - wife have obtained divorce in M.C.No.583/2017 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, by virtue of settlement entered into between them in Mediation. They further submitted that, as agreed to between the parties in the Mediation, both sides have agreed to quash the criminal proceedings under challenge now. The petitioner No.1 husband has also agreed to pay a sum of `8,00,000/- to the respondent No.2 herein, out of which `4,00,000/- has already been paid and remaining `4,00,000/- has also been acknowledged today by respondent No.2.
CRL.P.No.102713/2017:6:
In this regard, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also filed a memo acknowledging the receipt of `4,00,000/- by his client from petitioner No.1.
With the above submission, both sides pray for quashing of C.C.No.235/2012 pending in the Court below.
6. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 submits that, in view of the fact that both petitioners as well respondent No.2 have, on their free will and keeping their best interest in consideration, have settled the matter, though the alleged offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the IPC is not compoundable, however, by virtue of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58, the criminal case pending in the Court below be quashed disposing of this petition.
7. In Jitendra RAghuvanshi and Others Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, reported in (2013) 4 CRL.P.No.102713/2017 :7: SCC 58, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paras 13, 14 and 15 as below:
"13. As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that after filing of a complaint in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC, the parties, in the instant case, arrived at a mutual settlement and the complainant also has sworn an affidavit supporting the stand of the appellants. That was the position before the trial Court as well as before the High Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code. A perusal of the impugned order of the High Court shows that because the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties relate to non-compoundable offence, the court proceeded on a wrong premise that it cannot be compounded and dismissed the petition filed under Section 482. A perusal of the petition before the High Court shows that the application filed by the appellants was not for compounding of non-compoundable offences but for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings.
14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi (supra), this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into CRL.P.No.102713/2017 :8: between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at.
15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. 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, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings."
A reading of the entire judgment, more particularly, the above paragraphs, clearly go to show that, if the Court is convinced that, if the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute amicably and the said settlement is a genuine settlement, keeping the interest of both sides in mind, in such a case, even if the offences are non- CRL.P.No.102713/2017 :9: compoundable and if they are related to matrimonial dispute and if the Court has satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, then Sections 323 and 498A of the IPC would not be a bar to exercise of the power of quashing of the FIR, complaint and subsequent criminal proceedings.
8. In the instant case, an enquiry made by this Court today with the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, who are present in-person, reveals that both of them have, with their free will and without any pressure and with mutual interest in consideration, have settled the matter. In furtherance of their settlement before the Mediation Centre, which has taken place on 26.08.2017, their marriage also came to be dissolved in M.C.No.583/2017 in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru on 30.08.2017. The said Family Court also has considered the settlement as the basis for granting the decree of divorce. As such, it is more clear and convincing that in their mutual interest the parties have settled the CRL.P.No.102713/2017 : 10 : matter and therefore, even though the offence alleged under Section 498A of the IPC is not compoundable, but for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not come in the way in recognizing the settlement entered into between the parties and treating the matter as compounded and consequently quashing the criminal proceedings under challenge.
9. Accordingly, entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.235/2012 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC-II, at Karwar for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 498A R/w. Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, is hereby quashed.
Accordingly, at the admission itself, the present petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab