Sri Giridhar V. Nayak vs State of Karnataka

The petitioner''s counsel files a memo dated 9.1.2008 producing Mediation Agreement dated 29.10.2015 between the parties and also Order

Sheet in M.C.No.3866/2015. The petitioner and counsel present before the Court. The respondent No.2 and her counsel are remained absent.

It is seen from the records that the petitioner and second respondent are husband and wife respectively. Due to the matrimonial dispute it

appears respondent No.2 has filed a criminal case against the husband for the offence under Section 498A and 506 of IPC. The charge sheet has

been laid against the husband in C.C.No.17873/2013. In the meantime, the husband has also filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the

Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.3866/2015. Both the parties were referred to mediation and the parties have entered into a memorandum of

settlement before the Mediation Centre and the memorandum of settlement was produced before the Court and after accepting the said

memorandum of agreement between the parties, the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M.C.No.3866/2015 vide order dated 29.10.2015

accepting the compromise petition, granted the decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner. The family Court has recorded that on 29.10.2015

both the parties were present and the Court has enquired into the matter and after hearing the parties the Court was convinced that the settlement

entered into between the parties was voluntary one and the parties have agreed to the terms and conditions incorporated in the memorandum of

settlement. Therefore, the said settlement is valid and accepted by the judicial Court.

In the said compromise petition at paragraph 12 the respondent-wife has agreed to withdraw the case in C.C.No.17873/2013 for the above

said offences and she will co-operate for quashing of the criminal proceedings in this petition before this Court.

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, I do not find any strong reason to dismiss the petition. The petition requires to be allowed as

prayed for.

In a decision reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 in the case of GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER, the Apex Court has

laid down certain guidelines under what circumstance the Court can quash the criminal proceedings. The said guidelines are as follows:

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.

The facts of this case also falls under the categories as per the guidelines of the Apex Court. Therefore, there is no legal impediment for quashing

the proceedings. Hence, the following

ORDER

The petition is allowed. Consequently, all further proceedings in C.C.No.17873/2013 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bangalore, against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC are hereby stands quashed.