Janardhan vs Shwetha

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Sri. D.M. Manjunath, Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that he has already filed vakalath in the office. Office to put-up the vakalath stated to have been filed, along with this file.

Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 and their respective counsels are present before the court.

On 24.03.2014, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 have filed a compromise petition before this court narrating that they have compounded the offences under Section 498-A, 420, 506 of IPC and also under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, D.P. Act) in connection with C.C. No. 463/2011, which is pending before the JMFC, Doddaballapur. The petitioner and Respondent No. 1, have fortified the averments made in the compromise petition, which is available before this court and both of them have pleaded that the criminal proceedings may be quashed.

The records disclose that the petitioner and the 1st respondent are the husband and wife and due to some incompatibility, the dispute arose between themselves, which lead to the wife filing a criminal complaint which is registered in C.C. No. 463/2011 before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Doddaballapur. In the meantime, the parties have entered into compromise wherein the petitioner-husband has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs to the 1st respondent-wife herein towards Permanent Alimony, Compensation and other claims, and both of them have agreed to file a petition before the competent court for dissolution of their marriage. It is submitted by the learned counsels that a petition has already been filed before the competent court in M.C. No. 9/2014 pending on the file of the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District. In the meantime, the petitioner has approached this court seeking for quashing of the above said criminal proceeding.

There is no embargo on the powers of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings, in view of the decision rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , wherein the Apex Court has held thus:-

"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.............."

It is also worth to note here the subsequent decision rendered in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, , wherein the Apex Court, particularly referring to the matrimonial disputes, has laid down a law that the court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings exclusively which are pertaining to matrimonial disputes, in order to facilitate the parties to live happily in their future life The relevant portion of the said decision reads as follows:-

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

It is stated that the conflict between the parties has already been fully resolved and they have settled the matter. As the dispute between the parties is purely private and personal in nature and it will not have any societal impact, the compromise between the parties is hereby accepted. In view of the above said rulings and also facts of this case, I do not find any illegality in the compromise entered into between the parties. Hence, this petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the compromise petition filed before this court by the parties is accepted as the same is not out of any coercion or misrepresentation. Hence, the following order:-

The petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C. No. 463/2011 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Doddaballapura, Bangalore Rural District, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 506 IPC and also Section 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act is hereby quashed.