Chandrashekar vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petition is filed seeking for quashing of the proceedings in Crime No. 66/2014 pending on the file of the V Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offence punishable u/s 498A read with Section 34 of IPC.

Sri. Chandrashekar, first petitioner herein and Smt. Mayamxna, second respondent herein are present before the Court.

Sri Javeed.S, learned counsel for the petitioners is present before the Court. Sri C.D. Narasimhan, learned counsel files power for the second respondent, identifies her before this Court.

Heard and perused the records. The parties have filed their respective affidavits before this Court submitting that they have compromised the matter and they have no objection to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 66/2014 pending on the file of the V Addl. CMM, for the offence punishable u/s 498A read with Section 34 of IPC. There is no dispute as to the filing of complaint by the second respondent for the above said offences and consequently, the Police have started the investigation in Crime No. 66/2014 registered by the Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station. In the affidavit, it is specifically contended that the second respondent has filed the case against her husband and her husband''s relatives. However, subsequently, they compromised the matter. Now, both the husband and wife are living together happily with each other. They have compounded the offences. Therefore, in order to facilitate them to lead their future life happily with each other, the present petition deserves to be allowed.

Before granting such permission to compound the offences, it is relevant to refer to the latest pronouncement of the 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, the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that -

" The inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 of Cr.PC are wide and unfettered. It is trite to state that the power u/s 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 u/s 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 proceeding. 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 sought compounding of the offences. They had approached the High Court u/s 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 facts and circumstances of the case and also the decision cited supra, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings as prayed for, as the matter is relating to matrimony. Since the dispute is purely private in nature between the husband and wife, in order to facilitate the first respondent and the second respondent to live happily with each other, their compromise affidavits have to be accepted. Accordingly, following Order is passed:

The Petition is allowed. All further proceedings and investigation in respect of Crime No. 66/2014 for the offence punishable u/s 498A read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of the V Addl. CMM, Bangalore City, are hereby quashed.