Karnataka High Court
Shivaraj S P vs Smt M J Rathna on 21 June, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K. N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO.4481/2018
BETWEEN
1. SHIVARAJ S P
S/O PAPA BOVI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O SEEGURU VILLAGE
RAVANDURU HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DIST -571 107
2. MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O DASA BOVI
MAKANAHALLI PALYA VILLAGE
RAVANDURU HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107
3. PAPA BOVI
S/O PUTTA BOVI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
4. LALITHA
W/O PAPA BOVI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
5. HARISH S P
S/O PAPA BOVI
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
PETITIONERS 3 TO 5 ARE
R/AT SEEGURU VILLAGE
RAVANDURU HOBLI
2
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DIST-571107 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADV.)
AND
1. SMT M J RATHNA
D/O N PRABHU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O NO.1247, LIG, 1ST
4TH STAGE, KALYANAGIRI
MYSURU-570 001
2. NAZARBAD P.S.
DEVARAJA SUB DIVISION
MYSURU, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001
3. DEEPIKA
W/O SHIVARAJU SP
R/O SEEGURU VILLAGE
RAVANDURU HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DIST-571 107 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ESHWARA H. H., ADV. FOR R1 & R3;
SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R2.)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR AS PER ANNEXURE-A FILED AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.84/2018 REGISTERED BY
NAZARBAD POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss. 506,
504, 417 AND 376 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE
FILE OF III-J.M.F.C., MYSURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Petitioners 1 to 5 and Respondent Nos. 1 & 3
are present before the court along with their respective counsels.
2. Sri. Eshwar H.H., Advocate files vakalath for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Learned HCGP takes notice for Respondent No.2-State.
3. Petitioners and Respondent Nos.1 & 3 have filed a joint memo stating that they have compromised the matter and Petitioner No.1 has married Respondent No.3 and there is no dispute between themselves and Respondent No.3 and petitioner No.1 are living happily with each other as husband and wife. The joint memo filed on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents disclose that, Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.3 were majors and they were wandering together and in fact they were fell in love with each other. It is alleged that Petitioner No.1 persuaded Respondent No.3 with an assurance to marry her and took her to various places 4 and he had sexual intercourse with her. When the 1st petitioner made attempts to marry some other girl, it appears under such misconception, a complaint against him was lodged by the 1st respondent, who is the mother of the 3rd respondent making allegations that Petitioner No.1 has forcibly ravished her daughter and breached his promise and thereby Petitioner No.1 had cheated Respondent Nos. 1 & 3. When they went to Petitioner No.1 to enquire about the same, he threatened them with dire consequences of killing them and also abused them in filthy language. On the said allegations when a complaint lodged, Respondent No.2-Police have registered a case in Crime No.84/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 417, 376 r/w 34 IPC against the petitioners.
4. On careful perusal of the joint memo and as well as the submissions made before the court by Petitioner No.1 and Respondent Nos. 1 & 3, it is clear that Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.3 are majors; 5 they fell in love with each other. Jointly with consent they were wandering together and they had sexual intercourse with each other. Therefore, at this stage, it is very difficult for this court to draw an inference that there was any offence constituted under Section 376 of IPC. The other offences are in fact compoundable in nature. In the joint memo, Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.3 stated that they have already married to each other and in that regard they have also produced before this court, the Certificate of Registration of their Marriage, which discloses that Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.3 have got married on 19.05.2018. In the joint memo, the complainant-Respondent No.1 and the victim (Respondent No.3) have categorically expressed that they have no objection to quash the said criminal proceedings against the petitioner No.1, who is none other than the husband of Respondent No.3 and other petitioners. In such circumstances, there is a very bleak chances of police filing any charge sheet against Petitioner No.1.
6
5. At this stage, it is worth to note here a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has given certain guidelines with regard to quashing of the proceedings whenever the parties have entered into compromise. The relevant portion of the said decision reads thus:-
"Held -Power of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from power of a criminal court of compounding offences under S. 320 - Cases where power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised where the parties have settled their dispute, held, depends on facts and circumstances of each case - Before exercise of inherent quashment power under S.482, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact. .............
Thus, held, heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, 7 dacoity, etc., or under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants, cannot be quashed even though victim or victim's family and offender have settled the dispute
- Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
"But criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing - Offences arising from commercial financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute, High Court may quash criminal proceedings - High Court, in such cases, must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between parties and whether to secure ends of justice, it is 8 appropriate the criminal case it put to an end. If such question(s) are answered in the affirmative, High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings..."
6. Even in another decision(2014) 6 SCC 466 [Narinder Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.], the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, even though the offences are serious in nature and having some impact on the society as they are heinous in nature, the court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings, but the courts should circumspect the circumstances of that particular case and find-out whether continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and no fruitful purpose would be served and as well as there is a very bleak chances of the case ending up in conviction. In such circumstances, based on the factual circumstances of the case, if the court considers that it is a rare case where the court can exercise discretionary power to quash the 9 proceedings, in such cases, the High Courts can exercise its discretionary powers and quash the proceedings. In the above said case, the court has quashed the proceedings under Section 307 of IPC even though the said offence is heinous and serious in nature and having impact on the society. In this particular case also, as I have noted, the constitution of offence under Section 376 of IPC itself is doubtful in view of the free movements of Petitioner No.1 and Respondent 3 together.
7. In the above circumstances considering this case as a rare case, I am of the opinion that the discretion has to be exercised to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein registered by the Respondent No.2-Police for the above said offences, in order to facilitate Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.3 to lead their happy married life.
8. With the above observation, the following order is passed:
10
ORDER The joint memo filed by the parties is accepted. The petition is allowed. Consequently, the further investigation by the respondent No.2-Nazarbad and all further proceedings before III JMFC at Malavalli, Mysuru District, in Crime No. 84/2018 registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 417, 376 r/w.34 IPC, are hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of this case, the application-
IA No.1/2018 filed for stay, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*