Karnataka High Court
Basappa S/O. Sadappa Saidapur vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101236/2014
BETWEEN:
1. BASAPPA
S/O. SADAPPA SAIDAPUR
AGE: 35 YEARS,
R/AT: FARM HOUSE,
BELAGALI VILLAGE
TQ: MUDHOL
DIST: BAGALKOT
2. SADAPPA
S/O. RAMAPPA SAIDAPUR
AGE: 65 YEARS,
R/AT: FARM HOUSE,
BELAGALI VILLAGE
TQ: MUDHOL
DIST: BAGALKOT
3. SMT. PARAWWA
W/O. SADAPPA SAIDAPUR
AGE: 60 YEARS,
R/AT: FARM HOUSE,
BELAGALI VILLAGE
TQ: MUDHOL
DIST: BAGALKOT
4. SMT. BHARATEWWA
2
W/O. BASAPPA SAIDAPUR
AGE: 32 YEARS,
R/AT: FARM HOUSE,
BELAGALI VILLAGE
TQ: MUDHOL
DIST: BAGALKOT.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI : MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MAHALINGPUR POLICE STATION
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HIGH COURT
GOVERNMENT PLEADER)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS ILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & ADDL. JMFC COURT,
MUDHOL, IN C.C.NO.584/2008.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners are present before the Court. They admit the contents of criminal petition filed before this Court 3 seeking for quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No.584/2008 pending on the file of Addl. J.M.F.C., Mudhol.
2. Petitioner Nos.1 and 4 have filed their affidavit for having settled the matter between themselves for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity). The records disclose that petitioner No.4 had filed a complaint against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and the same has been registered in C.C. No.584/2008 for the above said offences and in fact the accused persons i.e., petitioner Nos.1 to 3 had appeared before the trial Court. It appears, on 13.06.2014 parties have compromised the matter between themselves. Therefore, the accused persons and complainant filed an application under Section 320 (1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity) seeking indulgence of the trial Court to permit them to amicably settle the matter between themselves and 4 have consequently requested the Court to acquit the accused persons for the alleged offence under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. The trial Court, vide order dated 13.06.2014 had rejected the said application stating that under Section 320 (1) and 320 (2) of Cr.P.C. the Court has no jurisdiction to permit the parties to compound the offences, when any one of the offence is a non-compoundable offence. Admittedly, Section 498A is a non-compoundable offence. Therefore, the parties have approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the entire proceedings, in view of the terms of compromise entered into between the parties. It is worth to note here a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in -
(2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 58 between Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another.
3. In the above said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held as under -
5
" The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are wide and unfettered. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. Thus, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Consequently, 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, it is held that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.6
The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 Cr.P.C. enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enable the Supreme Court to pass such orders.
In the present case, the appellants (the husband and his relatives, accused under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) had not sought compounding of the offences. They had approached the high Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal proceedings. The High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings in question by accepting the settlement arrived at by the parties concerned."7
4. In view of the above decision, there is no legal impediment for this Court to record the compromise and quash the entire proceedings in order to facilitate and enable the parties to lead a happy married life in future. Though Section 498A of I.P.C. is a non-compoundable offence, but the offence is particularly with reference to the matrimonial dispute between the parties, which has been settled. It is just and necessary to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. In view of the above said decision and facts and circumstances of this particular case, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, petition is hereby allowed and the proceedings pending before the Addl. J.M.F.C., Mudhol, in C.C. No.584/2008 is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE hnm/