Aji Denis C.J. vs The State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Sri Aji Denis C.J., first petitioner and Smt. B. Sandhya, second respondent herein are present before the Court. Sri G. Nagaraj, learned counsel files power for respondent No. 2. The learned counsel for the respective parties also present before the Court. The learned counsels identified their respective parties before the Court. Petitioners 2 to 6 are absent.

The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 files a Joint Affidavit stating that they have amicably settled the matter and that they have no objection to quash the entire proceedings in SC No. 23/2013 pending on the file of the Fast Track Court, Tumkur.

I have carefully perused the records. The records disclose that the first petitioner and second respondent are the husband and wife; their marriage took place in the year 2011; they were also blessed with a child. After some time, it appears, some dispute arose between them, which led to second respondent filing a complaint against the petitioners alleging offences punishable u/s. 498A, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and also u/s. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police have investigated the said matter and submitted charge sheet and subsequently, the same has culminated in SC No. 23/2013 which is pending on the file of the Fast Track Court, Tumkur. The Joint Memo/Joint Affidavit filed before the Court also show that petitioner No. 1 has filed a matrimonial case against respondent No. 2 seeking nullity of their marriage in OP No. 637/2012, which was allowed before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, Kerala by judgment dated 8.11.2013. It is also submitted that the first petitioner and second respondent have amicably settled the matter and at paragraph 9 of the Joint Affidavit, the terms of the compromise has been specifically stated. It is also stated that Criminal Mis. No. 1536/2012 pending on the file of the III Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Tumkur, which was filed by the second respondent for Dowry Prohibition Act is also agreed to be withdrawn.

Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, it appears the parties have amicably settled the matter and they are gracefully parting with each other. In order to protect their interest and to make the parties to live happily in future, it is just and necessary to quash the proceedings.

Though the offence alleged is u/s. 307 of IPC, which is a non-compoundable offence in nature, there is no hard and fast rule that it cannot be quashed exercising power u/s. 482 of Cr.PC. It is worth to note here a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, , wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has laid down certain guidelines in this regard.

In another ruling of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , the Hon''ble Apex Court has said that

"The offences which are heinous and serious in nature with regard to mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc., or under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants while working in their capacity as public servants, cannot be quashed even though victim or victim''s family and offender have settled the dispute."

So far as it relates to Commercial, Mercantile, Civil, Partnership or like transactions or offences and also the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, then the Court has to look into the facts and circumstances of the case, may quash the criminal proceedings.

In a similar matter, when a complaint lodged u/s. 307 of IPC, it was dealt with in a decision between Prashant Vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in 2012(3) KCCR 2338, this Court exercising extraordinary power u/s. 482 of Cr.PC., quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences alleged u/ss. 498A, 504 and 307 of IPC.

Further, in pursuance of the compromise entered into between the parties, the first petitioner is making payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) only by way of DD No. 791994 of Federal Bank and the same is received by the second respondent before this Court, today.

In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and the guidelines of the Hon''ble Apex Court, I do not find any strong reason to reject the prayer sought for by the parties. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Consequently, all proceedings in SC No. 23/2013 pending on the file of the Fast Track Court, Tumkur, for the offence punishable u/s 498A and 307 of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of the DP Act, read with Section 34 of IPC are hereby quashed.