Denzil Raj Kumar & Ors. vs The State & Anr.

Petitioner No.2 is present before the Court. Counsel for respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 remained absent. No representation..

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have already settled the matter by means of entering into a Memorandum of

Settlement before the I Additional Principal Family Court, Bangalore, in M.C.No.4717/2015. The Xerox copies of the proceedings in

M.C.No.4717/2015 is produced before the Court. It is seen that at paragraph 10 both the parties have stated that, they shall co-operate with

each other to quash the criminal case in Crime No.131/2015 filed before the K.R.Puraum Police Station, under Section 498-A of IPC. The said

compromise petition was placed before the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore and after examining the parties, the Court has

accepted the said compromise petition and granted the decree of divorce in favour of the parties vide orders dated 27.2.2017.

As could be seen from the records, the present criminal case is arising out of Crime No.131/2015 wherein K.R.Puram Police have registered a

case for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

When the parties have settled their disputes and the Memorandum of Settlement has been accepted by the Family Court and the parties have

fairly admitted the contents of the said compromise before the Family Court and divorce decree has been granted, there is no legal impediment to

quash the proceedings.

Though respondent No.2 is represented by his counsel, has not filed any objections whatsoever with regard to the above said facts and

circumstances of this particular case. Therefore, the petition is required to be allowed.

In the above said facts and circumstances it is just and necessary to quote the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 in

the case of GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHER:

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - 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, (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC 1 require

reconsideration.

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

On careful perusal of the factual aspects of this case, this case also falls as per the guidelines of the Apex Court. Therefore, there is no legal

impediment to quash the proceedings. Hence, the following

The petition is allowed. Consequently Crime No.131/2015 on the file of K.R.Puram Police Station registered and pending before the 10th

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offences under Sections 498A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all further investigation in connection with the said crime number are hereby quashed.