Karnataka High Court
Arun Kumar R G vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K. N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO.5223/2016
BETWEEN
1. ARUN KUMAR R G
S/O GOVINDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
2. GOVINDAIAH
S/O DODAMMIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
3. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI
W/O GOVINDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
4. SRINIVAS R.G
S/O GOVINDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
5. SMT. PADMAVATHI R.G.
D/O GOVINDAIAH
W/O DR. RAVIKUMAR B.P.
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT 308, 9TH CROSS
2ND STAGE, BCC LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 086
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A. N. RADHAKRISHNA, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIJAYANAGAR POLICE
BENGALURU, REP. BY
2
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SMT HAMSA H
W/O ARUNKUMAR R.G.
D/O SRI HANUMAIAH G.V.
AGED 31 YEARS
R/AT 511, 10TH MAIN
18TH CROSS, M.C. LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 010 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. BYRESH V., ADV. FOR
SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR. NO.301/2016 (PCR
NO.5939/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV A.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU) OF VIJAYANAGARA POLICE, BENGALURU,
FOR OFFENCES P/U/Ss. 420, 384, 326, 506, 498(A)
R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/Ss. 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 are present before the Court along with their respective Advocates.
2. The parties on both sides submit that they have compounded the offences by compromising the disputes between themselves. It is also submitted that the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent are the husband and wife respectively and due to some 3 misconception and misunderstanding arose between them, they have filed criminal cases against each other. Admittedly, they have entered into compromise before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, in MC No.540/2018 on 22.02.2018, wherein they have categorically stated at Para-10 that, the parties would co-operate with each other for seeking quashing of the criminal cases registered against each other in C.C. No.18433/2016 for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC r/w. Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act pending before XXIV ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under section and CC No.3546/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 501, 506, 504, 384, 323 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P.Act and pending before VIII ACMM, Bengaluru. The said compromise was already accepted by the Family Court while granting Decree of Divorce in favour of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.
3. As could be seen from the entire records and the factual aspects of this case, it is essentially the matrimonial dispute between the 1st petitioner and the 4 2nd respondent and they have already taken divorce, and they do not want to continue the criminal proceedings against each other.
4. 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, 5 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 appropriate the criminal case it put to an end. If such question(s) are answered in the affirmative, 6 High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings..."
5. The factual aspects of this case also falls under the categories of guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision supra. Therefore, there is no legal impediment for this court to accept the compromise of the parties and to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. Hence, the following order:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the case in C.C. No.18433/2016 arising out of Crime No.301/2016 Vijayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru) registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420, 384, 326, 506, 498-A r/w. 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, pending on the file of the XXIV ACMM, Bengaluru, and all further proceedings therein, sofaras the petitioners concerned, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*