Basavaraju and others vs State and Anr.

H. Billappa, J.—The petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.No. 1224/2005 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, have filed this petition praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 1224/2005.

Based on the complaint of the 2nd respondent, a case in Crime No. 71/2005 of Women Police Station, Mysuru City has been registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A. 506 R/W. Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 R/W. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

The trial has commenced. In the meanwhile, the petitioners and 2nd respondent have compromised the matter. They have filed compromise petition also.

Except the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, the other offences are not compoundable. However, the parties have amicably settled their dispute.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Sing v. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC page 303 has observed as follows at paras 58 and 61;

"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will bean exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.

The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but is has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim�s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote anti bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

In the present case, the parties have amicably settled their dispute. They have agreed to close all the cases. No purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1224/2005 on the file of IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru.

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No. 1224/2005 on the file IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, is hereby quashed.

The parties shall act in terms of their settlement.