DR.SUNDAR MAHALLINGAM & ORS. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and their respective counsel are present before the Court.

Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit stating that petitioner No.1 and second respondent have compromised the matter and she has no

objection to quash the proceedings.

The records disclose that petitioner No.1 and second respondent are husband and wife. Due to some matrimonial dispute, the second

respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners which is culminated in C.C.No.10/12 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge &

JMFC, Mysuru for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

In view of the compromise between the parties and in order to facilitate them to lead happy life hereinafter, it is just and necessary to quash the

proceedings.

It is worth to record the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in its decision reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 between GIAN SINGH Vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER, wherein it has laid down the following guidelines under what circumstances the Court will permit the

parties to compound the offences and quash the proceedings:

-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 case 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 above 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 proceeding.

The factual aspects of this particular case falls within the categories mentioned in the guidelines of the Hon''ble Apex Court. Under the above

said circumstances, there is no legal impediment to accept the compromise petition and affidavit filed by respondent No.2. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

ii. The compromise between the parties by way of affidavit filed by respondent No.2 is hereby accepted.

iii. All further proceedings in C.C.No.10/12 pending on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru for the offences under

Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby quashed.