Karnataka High Court
Karanidhan vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2021
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S. Vishwajith Shetty
Crl.P.1415/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1415 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. KARANIDHAN
S/O KESTHUDHAN,
AGED 28 YEARS,
R/AT RATHADIYA VILLAGE,
PANCHU POST, NOKA TALUK,
BIKANER, RAJASTHAN STATE.
NOW R/AT HOYSALA NAGARA,
ARASIKERE TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573103.
2. KESTHUDHAN
S/O AMMARDHAN,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT RATHADIYA VILLAGE,
PANCHU POST, NOKA TALUK
BIKANER, RAJASTHAN STATE 172 111.
3. BIKKU
W/O KESTHUDHAN,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT RATHADIYA VILLAGE,
PANCHU POST, NOKA TALUK,
BIKANER,
RAJASTHAN STATE 172 111. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.RAVISHANKAR, ADV.)
Crl.P.1415/2021
2
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ARASIKERE TWON P. S.
ARASIKERE SUB-DIVISION,
ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 103.
2. MANJULA
W/O LATE SRINIVASA,
AGED 40 YEARS,
R/AT HOYSALA NAGARA,
ARASIKERE TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMIJADHAV, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI SHARATH KUMAR. H.N., ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGSIN
SPL.C.NO.206/2017 (CR.NO.58/2017) REGISTERED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 363, 366A, 370, 376 OF IPC AND SEC.4, 8 OF POCSO ACT
AND SEC.9, 10, 11 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned HCGP for the first respondent-State and the learned counsel for the second respondent-complainant. Crl.P.1415/2021 3
2. The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Special Case No.206/2017 pending on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, arising out of Crime No.58/2017 registered by Arasikere Town Police Station, Hassan, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 370, 376, Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 of IPC and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, have approached this court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the said case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the second respondent-complainant would jointly submit that the marriage of the victim girl has been performed with the first petitioner herein on 5th July 2018 and the said marriage is also registered before the office of Registrar of Marriage, Arasikere. They submit that from the wedlock, the first petitioner and his wife, who is the victim girl have two children. They would Crl.P.1415/2021 4 submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and it is only thereafterwards marriage has taken place and they are all residing together happily. The affidavit of the complainant is also filed and paragraphs-2 to 4 of the said affidavit read as follows:
"2. I submit that the above criminal petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the entire proceedings in Special Case No.206/2017 (Crime No.58/2017) registered by the 1st respondent pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan District, Hassan, wherein the petitioners have been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 363,366(A), 370, 376 of IPC and Sections 4,8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Sections 9,10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006.
3. I submit that the petitioner No.1 is my son-in- law and the petitioner No.2 and 3 are his parents. I submit that due to the intervention of the elder family members and well wishers the petitioners and my family and I have resolved my misunderstanding which was crept in.
4. I submit that my daughter by name Smt.Ranjitha has been legally married to the 1st petitioner and out of the wed-lock 2 children have been begotten by name Moulya aged 3.5 years and Monica aged about 9 months. The 1st petitioner and my daughter are leading their happy life till today. I submit that the above said complaint has been filed under a mistaken notion and I hereby withdraw the Crl.P.1415/2021 5 entire allegations made in Crime No.58/2017 (Spl.Case No.206/2017). I submit that I don't have any objection to quash the entire proceedings against all the petitioners who are accused Nos.4,5 and 6 before the trial court."
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh -vs- State of Punjab & Others1, has held in paragraph-61 as under:
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised 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 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. 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 1 (2012)10 SCC 303 Crl.P.1415/2021 6 not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like 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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."Crl.P.1415/2021 7
5. In identical circumstances, this court in the following cases viz.,
(i) Criminal Petition No.4556/2020 DD 02.11.2020;
(ii) Criminal Petition No.136/2020 DD 08.01.2020;
(iii) Criminal Petition No.5922/2019 DD 11.09.2019 and
(iv) Criminal Petition No.3162/2018 DD 18.06.2018, taking into consideration the settlement arrived at between the parties and also considering the fact that the victim is now married to the person, who had allegedly committed sexual assault on her, has quashed the entire proceedings, which were impugned in those petitions.
6. The respondent No.2-complainant has appeared before the court through video conference. She has been identified by her Advocate. She has stated that the settlement is voluntary and her daughter, who is the victim girl, is now married to the first petitioner herein and from the wedlock, they have got two children and they are all residing together happily. Crl.P.1415/2021 8
7. Under the circumstances, no purpose would be served in continuing the further proceedings as against the petitioner and continuation of such proceedings would be futile and it will amount to abuse of the process of law. Therefore, for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, I deem it proper to quash the entire proceedings, which is impugned in this petition.
8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Special Case No.206/2017 pending on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, arising out of Crime No.58/2017 registered by Arasikere Town Police Station, Hassan, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 370, 376, Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 of IPC and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, is hereby quashed.
Crl.P.1415/20219
In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.A. does not survive for consideration. Hence, it stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/-