Arunkumar and Others vs State and Others

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 present before the Court. Respective counsels also present, identified their parties. The learned High Court Govt. Pleader is appearing for the first respondent.

A memorandum of understanding is filed before the Court stating that both the parties, i.e. first petitioner and 2nd respondent are the husband and wife and their marriage took place long back and due to their mis-understanding, the parties have been fighting against each other in different courts. Subsequently at the intervention of elders of the family, they amicably resolved their litigations in various courts pending since last two years. It is also agreed and accepted in the said memorandum of understanding that a case is pending before II Addl. Civil Judge (JD) and JMFC Kalaburagi in C.C. No. 4012/2012 is also amicably settled between the parties. The wife, who is present before the Court has absolutely no objection to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 4012/2012 in view of the compromise terms entered into between the parties.

Both the parties present before the Court have admitted the execution of memorandum of understanding amongst themselves, which is produced before the Court. They have also filed their respective affidavits stating that they have amicably settled the dispute amongst themselves. IN view of the above said circumstances, it is just and necessary to pass appropriate orders.

It is worth to refer a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court, reported in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , wherein Hon''ble Apex Court, while dealing with the provisions of Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., held that in appropriate cases, where the trial Court cannot record the compromise between the parties U/Sec. 320 Cr.P.C., but the High Court can exercise the powers U/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., and direct the parties to compound the offences even though they are non compoundable in nature and quash the criminal cases between the parties in order to give effect to the compromise between the parties and enable them to live happily in their future life. It is held in the said judgment, as:--

"Power of High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings 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". Further some guidelines have also been issued in the following manner:--

"Heinous and serious offences of 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 -Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society".

"But criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil favour 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 is put to an end-................."

Applying the above said principles to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is purely matrimonial dispute between the parties that has been settled amongst themselves. Therefore, in the event of continuation of the criminal proceedings, it will definitely cause inconvenience to the parties to the proceedings. Therefore, in order to enable the parties to live happily in future life, I feel it is just and necessary to quash the proceedings as sought for. Hence the following:--

ORDER

"The petition is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 4012/2012 arising out of Crime No. 76/2012 of Mahila Police Station, Kalaburagi, pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge (JD) and JMFC Kalaburagi and also further proceedings is hereby quashed."