D. Manjunath vs The S.H.O.

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Petitioners No. 1 to 4 and their Counsel, respondent No. 2 and her Counsel are present before the Court. Learned Counsel Sri. G.V. Dayananda has filed Vakalath for 2nd respondent in the Office.

It is submitted by both the parties and the Counsel that the parties have resolved their conflict of disputes between themselves before the Bangalore Mediation Centre in M.C. No. 3646/2011, wherein the parties have also agreed to withdraw the Criminal Case pending in C.C. No. 1665/2011 on the file of V Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is the subject matter of this petition.

I have carefully perused the Memorandum of Settlement filed under Section 89 of C.P.C. which was placed before the 1st Additional Principal Family Court, Bangalore in M.C. No. 3646/2011, wherein the 2nd respondent as petitioner and 1st petitioner as respondent in the said case has presented the said Memorandum of Settlement. It is clear from the conditions enumerated in the said Memorandum of Settlement at paragraph 6 that the respondent No. 2 herein has categorically admitted that she has no more interested in prosecuting C.C. No. 1665/2011 and the parties have agreed to approach this Court for quashing of the said proceedings. The said compromise is admitted by the parties before this Court also today. Therefore, there is no impediment to this Court to quash the proceedings.

In a decision reported in:

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, and another wherein it is held that:

"Ss 482 and 320-Relative scope-Inherent power of High Court under S. 482 to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in view of compromise arrived at between the parties-Whether available-If so, then when may such power be exercised-Social impact of crime in question vis-a-vis its individual impact, as decisive criterion for exercise of quashment power in such cases-Guidelines for and limitations on exercise of quashment power of High Court in such cases, laid down-Whether S. 320 creates a bar/limits inherent power of High Court under S. 482, examined-Whether B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, and Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others, require reconsideration.

Held, power of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding 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.

Thus, held 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 flavour 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. If such question(s) are answered in the affirmative, High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings".

By applying the principle laid down in the above said case, which is a case where a matrimonial disputes between the parties has been resolved between the parties themselves. In order to live them happily in future, it is just and necessary to quash the proceedings.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 1665/2011 pending on the file of the 5th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and also Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed.