Karnataka High Court
Krishna S/O. Hanumanth Kundgol vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 April, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100478/2014
BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNA
S/O. HANUMANTH KUNDGOL
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: TEACHER
R/O. INDIRA NAGAR,
ALANAVAR TOWN,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD
2. HANUMANTHA S/O. NARASAPPA
KUNDGOL @ VADDAR
AGE: 66 YEARS
OCC: RTD. TEACHER
R/O. INDIRA NAGAR ALANAVAR
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD
3. SAROJA W/O. HANUMANTH
KUNDGOL @ VADDAR
AGE: 60 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. INDIRA NAGAR ALANAVAR
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD
4. VIJAYLAXMI @ LAXMI
W/O. SHANKAR VADDAR @ KUNDGOL
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER
2
NOW AT R/O. INDIRA NAGAR,
ALANAVAR,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD .
.. PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VASANT G. HOLEYANNAVAR, FOR SRI
G.A.HOLEYANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
P S I ALANVAR POLICE STATION
ALNAVAR
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD
2. SMT. SAVITRI W/O. KRISHNA KUNDGOL
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. INDIRA NAGAR,
NEAR BUS STOP, ALANAVAR TOWN
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR FOR R1;
SRI ARUNKUMAR P. SHIRATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 4/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 IN
C.C.NO.952/2012 (ANNEXURE-A) ON THE FILE OF THE II-
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC II-COURT,
DHARWAD ON THE BASIS OF FIR AND COMPLAINT BY
ALANVAR POLICE STATION CRIME NO.82/2011 FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF
IPC.
3
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1- State and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners and respondent No.2 are present. All of them have admitted the compromise entered into between them before this Court.
3. This petition is filed for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No.952/2012 which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity).
4. On 26.03.2014 emergent notice was ordered to respondent No.2 - Smt. Savitri. Respondent No.2 is present 4 before the Court. Sri Arunkumar P. Shiratti, learned counsel has filed vakalath for respondent No.2. The parties have filed compromise petition before this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity). In the affidavit respondent No.2 has categorically stated that she is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1 and has filed a complaint in Crime No.82/2011 on the file of Alnavar Police for the above said offences. It is further stated that after filing of case, herself and petitioner No.1 have compromised the matter and though they are residing in separate houses, but they are living happily with each other. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the divorce petition filed by petitioner No.1 - husband in M.C. No.329/2011 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Dharwad, and the maintenance petition filed by respondent No.2 - wife in Crl. Misc. No.140/2013 were withdrawn. 5
5. As the offence punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C. is non-compoundable in nature, the parties have moved this Court for quashing of the proceedings. It is worth to note a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case reported in -
(2012) 10 SCC 303 between Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment at paragraph 61 has laid down certain principles that under what facts and circumstances the Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to permit the parties to compound the offences even though the offences are non- compoundable in nature. It goes without saying so far as this case is concerned. The offences alleged against petitioners by respondent No.2 are non-compoundable in nature. Paragraph 61 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reads thus-
6
" 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 F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and the 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 not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, 7 any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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, the 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 8 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 the 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.
(emphasis supplied)
6. This Court had an occasion to deal with similar set of facts, which is involved in this particular case. In a case reported in-
2012 (3) KCCR 2338 between Prashant vs. State of Karnataka and Another, wherein it has been held that-9
"CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 -
Section 482 - To quash the proceeding registered on the basis of FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 307 of I.P.C. - Petitioner is the husband of the second respondent - Facts - Petitioner alleged to be flirting with other women and started ill-treating the second respondent - Petitioner was arrested on this background - As on date, petitioner and second respondent have reconciled and are living peacefully without any problems between them - Objection -
Maintainability of petition - Non-compoundable offences - Question of quashing the proceedings and seeking to initiate and withdraw proceeding at their, whim and fancy would make a mockery of justice system."
8. This Court while dealing with the matter relied upon plethora of decisions ultimately held that particularly in matrimonial matters Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This Court has also relied upon the rulings of Apex Court, reported in -
10
AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1969 between Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab.
(2008) 16 Supreme Court Cases 1 between Manoj Sharma vs. State and Others.
In view of the above said principles, the parties are permitted to compound the offences.
9. On meaningful reading and understanding of the above said cases the Apex Court has laid down the principles, particularly, as quoted above at para 61, that the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings, if in its view the compromise between the offender and the victim is genuine, if there are very remote and bleak chances of conviction, if continuation of criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and if any prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement of compromise with the victim. Therefore, the Apex Court has 11 cautioned that the High Court must consider the facts of individual case to ascertain whether it would be unfair or contrary to justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law. Despite settlement between the parties the Apex Court has observed that under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, in the cases of dacoity and in the serious cases where public interest is affected in such cases the Court should be very careful in exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
10. In the above said backdrop, the present case has to be analysed. It is a case between the husband and wife, as already noted above, the wife has filed complaint against the husband. There was no injury as such caused to the wife in this case. So far as section 498A is concerned, parties have compounded the said offences between each other. When it is categorically said by way of affidavit that the parties have compounded the matter and they are happily residing 12 together, in the event if the said criminal case is continued there is no chance of respondent No.2, who is the sole pivotal witness, supporting the case of prosecution. As could be seen from the entire papers on record, the entire case of prosecution stands on the statement of respondent No.2. If she is not willing to continue the case there are very remote chances of conviction in this case. Moreover, it is quite natural that quarrel takes place between husband and wife for a silly reason. Sometimes due to verbal altercation between the husband and wife, the husband may lose temper and control over his mind and try to do some unpleasant acts. Such acts should be controlled by wife in order to benefit the family members. Looking to the circumstances prevailing in this particular case and also applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court and as well as this Court in the decisions cited above, I am of the considered opinion that this is also a fit case where this Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings as sought for.
13
11. It is noted above that husband and wife have compromised the matter and are living together happily after compounding all their previous misdeeds between themselves. As the offence punishable under Section 498A is non-compoundable and when it is categorically stated that the said offence though non-compoundable but the parties have compromised the offence and the trial Court has no jurisdiction under Section 320(1) & (2) of Cr.P.C. to permit the parties to enter into compromise. However, in view of the above said decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, in order to keep the harmony between parties and for the betterment of future of the couple, the Court in extraneous circumstances can exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Under the above said circumstances, there is no legal impediment for this Court to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the following order is passed : 14
ORDER
i) Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
is allowed.
ii) The proceedings in C.C. No.952/2012 pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C. Court, Dharwad, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE hnm/