NARAYANASWAMY vs PAVAN KUMAR C N

Petitioners and Respondent No.1 is present.

Sri. K.J. Sagar, Advocate, files power for Respondent No.1.

This present petition is filed under Section 482 r/w. 320 Cr.P.C., seeking indulgence of this court to quash the proceedings in Crime No.

161/2016, which is later culminated in C.C. No.122/2017 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Channarayapatna, Hassan

District. It appears, due to the family dispute between the brother of the 1st respondent and his wife Ramyashree, it appears the cases have been

filed against each other and almost all the cases have been squared-up between themselves on compromising the matter in M.C. No.365/2017

between Pradeep @ Deepu and Ramyashree. This case is also an off-shoot of the family dispute between the parties. The offences alleged are

under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 326 r/w. 34 of IPC. The charge sheet has bee filed in C.C. No.122/2017.

Depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, this court has ample power to quash the proceedings, since the parties have

compromised the matter. In this context, it is worth to mention here a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466

[Narinder Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.], wherein certain guidelines have been laid down in respect of accepting the compromise

entered into between the parties pertaining to offence under Section 307 of IPC. The court under the peculiar circumstances of the case, has

observed that, depending upon the factual aspects of each case, if the court is of the opinion that such compromise can be recorded, then there is

no embargo under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the court to record such compromise and to quash the proceedings in the interest of justice.

Even in another decision in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303], the Hon''ble Apex Court has given certain

guidelines with regard to quashing of the proceedings whenever the parties have entered into compromise. The relevant portion of the said decision

reads thus:- .

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, 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.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

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 it 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...

In view of the above said decisions, it is laid down that, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the court can exercise its

discretion considering the nature of the offences and heinous nature of the offences, and social impact of the said offences. Though the offence

under Section 326 is alleged on this case, on perusal of the FIR, it is noticed that, in a scuffle between two groups, it is alleged that one

Govindaswamy has taken a club, which was lying on the ground at the time of the incident and assaulted Respondent No.1. Though it is alleged

that the offence under Section 326 is a serious one, but considering the other circumstances of the case that all the family members have filed cases

against each other, particularly with reference to the dispute between one Mr. Pradeep @ Deepu, the brother of the 1st respondent and wife of

said Mr. Pradde @ Deepu, by name Smt. Ramyashree in M.C. No.365/2017, all the disputes and allegations between the parties have been

cropped-up and they have stated that they have settled the entire dispute between themselves and resolved all the conflicts between them.

In the above said circumstances, though the offence alleged under Section 326 of IPC has got some social impact, but the factual circumstances

of this cases are sufficient in order to facilitate the parties to live happily in future, it is just and necessary to quash the proceedings as prayed for.

Hence, this case is also falls under the categories as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the above noted decisions. Hence,

I pass the following:-

ORDER

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in C.C. No.122/2017 arising out of Crime No. 161/2016 registered by

Channarayapatna Town Police, against the petitioners and pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC at

Channarayapatna, Hassan District, sofar as these petitioners concerned, are hereby quashed.