B.S. Deepak Kumar vs Gurubasamma

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Sri B.S. Deepak Kumar, first petitioner and his counsel are present. So also, the first respondent and her counsel are present before this Court. Both the parties file a Joint Memo stating that they have resolved their conflicts between themselves and compromised the matter.

The Joint Memo discloses that the petitioner and the first respondent got married on 14.11.2011. Due to some difference of opinion, the first respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner in Crime No. 13/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the Police are investigating the matter and the charge sheet is yet to be filed. In the mean time, the petitioner has filed MC Petition No. 583/2014 before the Family Court and it appears, the matter was referred to the Mediation for settlement. During the course of Mediation, the parties have entered into compromise and by virtue of the same, the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- and in this regard a report has been submitted to the Family Court. Today, the petitioner has paid Rs. 2,70,000/- to the first respondent and the first respondent has acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 2,70,000/-. In view of the compromise between the parties and filing of the Joint Memo, the parties request the Court to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No. 13/2013 registered by the Ulsoor Gate Police Station.

It is worth to refer 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 while dealing with the provisions of Section 482 and 320 of Cr.PC, has held that-

"The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC 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.PC does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC.

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.PC would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of IR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings. 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.PC enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables the Supreme Court to pass such orders.

In the present case, the appellants (the husband and his relatives accused under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) had not ought compounding of the offences. They had approached the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC 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."

In view of the above said decision and the facts of this case, it is clear that the dispute between the parties is purely private and personal in nature and the entire conflict between the parties have been resolved. In order to enable them to lead their life happily, it is just and necessary to quash the entire proceedings as there is no societal impact so far as acceptance of the compromise between the parties are concerned. Therefore, the Joint Memo filed by the parties is hereby accepted. Hence, the following:

The petition is allowed. Consequently, Crime No. 13/2013 dated 12.1.2013 registered by the Ulsoor gate Police Station, Bangalore and all further investigation is hereby quashed.