AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—1st Petitioner married the 1st Respondent on 21.06.2009. The 2nd & 3rd Petitioners are the parents of the 1st Petitioner. On account of incompatibility between the 1st Petitioner and the 1st Respondent, differences having arisen, the 1st Respondent filed a complaint before the 2nd Respondent, which was registered by the 2nd Respondent as Crime No. 416/2010 and an FIR was submitted to the 5th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore. The case was registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 509 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The 2nd Respondent has not yet filed the charge sheet.
The 1st Petitioner has filed M.C. No. 2689/2010 in the Family Court, Bangalore, seeking dissolution of the marriage between herself and the 1st Respondent. Petition having been referred to the Bangalore Mediation Centre, the parties have arrived at a settlement. A memorandum of agreement u/s 89 CPC having been drawn on 23.12.2010, the Petitioner, 1st Respondent and their learned advocates have signed the same. Copy of the said agreement is at Annexure-C to this petition.
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No. 416/2010 registered by the 2nd Respondent and submitted to the 5th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore.
Sri N. Suresh Kumar, advocate, has entered appearance on behalf of the 1st Respondent. The Petitioners and the 1st Respondent submitted a joint memo, wherein, it has been stated that, they have decided to put an end to the matters by obtaining divorce and the 1st Respondent has stated that, she does not wish to continue the case in Crime No. 416/2010. The memo has also been signed by the learned advocates appearing for the Petitioners and the 1st Respondent.
The 1st Respondent is a Master Degree holder. She is present before the court along with her mother. The 1st Respondent submitted that, there is settlement of dispute between herself and the Petitioners and that, she has entered into an agreement dated 23.12.2010 (Annexure C). She further submits that, she has received an offer of appointment as Project Officer from the Centre for Environment Education, Ahmedabad - 380 054 and would be leaving Bangalore on 02.01.2011 to report for duty on 03.01.2011. A copy of the offer of appointment dated 22.11.2010 was placed on record.
The Petitioners and the 1st Respondent submitted that, the joint memo dated 30.12.2010 be received on record and proceedings in Crime No. 416/2010 registered by the Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, pending on the file of 5th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore, be quashed.
From the above narrated facts, it is clear that, the Petitioners and the 1st Respondent have entered into a compromise and the 1st Respondent has undertaken to withdraw all proceedings filed and initiated by her against the Petitioners, which includes the case registered at her instance by the 2nd Respondent under Sections 498A & 509 of IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The agreement having been reached at the Bangalore Mediation Centre has been submitted to the Family Court.
The complaint was registered at the instance of the 1st Respondent due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. Subsequently, a divorce petition was filed and the parties reached an amicable settlement at the Bangalore Mediation Centre. In the circumstances, there would almost be no chance of conviction.
In the case of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , it has been held that, the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. It has been held that, a hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which the provision was added. It was further observed that, there is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling down.
Keeping in view the said declaration of law by the Apex Court and the fact that the 1st Respondent, who is well educated, has decided to put an end to the matters between herself and the Petitioners and also the fact that, she is intending to report for duty at Ahmedabad and settle down there itself, in my opinion, it is expedient and in the interest of justice to accept the joint memo filed by the parties and quash the case registered by 1st Respondent at the instance of the 2nd Respondent. The settlement between the 1st Petitioner and the 1st Respondent, as regard their matrimonial dispute is concerned being genuine and also being in the interest of the 1st Respondent, who has decided to settle down by reporting for duty at Ahmedabad, the joint memo filed in the petition is accepted.
In the result, the petition is allowed and the case registered by the 2nd Respondent in Crime No. 416/2010 and the FIR submitted to the 5th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore, is hereby quashed.