Sri. N. Sandeep and Others vs State of Karnataka and Smt. L. Mamatha alias Mythri

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—1st petitioner is the husband of respondent - 2, Respondent - 2 is the daughter of the sister of the 2nd petitioner. Marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent has-taken place on 2.10.2008. On account of some misunderstandings, basically between the parents of the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent, there were, difference of opinion with regard to the matrimonial home, wherein the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent had to live. 2nd respondent filed a complaint on 10.10.2009 (Annexure-.1) against the petitioners making allegations of harassment, demand for dowry etc., The Jalahalli police, on receipt of the said complaint, have registered a case in Crime No. 220/2009. Seeking quashing of the said proceedings, this petition has been filed.

The 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent appeared before this Court. Learned counsel appearing for both parties submitted that, the differences between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent have been sorted out and that they are living together as husband and wife from January, 2010. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent filed an affidavit of the 2nd respondent in which, it has been stated that at the instance of the well wishers and common friends, the differences have been sorted out.

Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the records.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, and contended that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned proceedings may be quashed.

In the aforesaid case, appellant No 4 was the husband and respondent No. 2 was his wife and their marriage had taken place on 21.7.1999. They were living separately since 15.7.2000. A case had been registered u/s 498-A, 323 and 406 of IPC at the police station at the instance of wife on 2.1.2002. An affidavit was filed to the effect that FIR was registered at the instance of wife due to temperamental differences and implied imputations and according to the affidavit, the disputes with the appellants had been finally settled and appellant No. 4 had agreed for mutual divorce. Considering the contents of the affidavit and the law applicable in the matter with regard to the quashing of criminal proceedings and the scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the Apex Court has held as follows:

In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others, . it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing u/s 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings.

The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and Ors. : (2000) 3 SCC 693 are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the Courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly extent which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about re-approachment are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different Courts.

There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of Indian Penal Code.

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or Complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers u/s 482 of the code.

When I made the enquiries with the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner, (both are educated and are employed) Doth of them stated that they are living in harmony and they would continue to live in harmony and all their differences have been sorted out and that the pending proceedings in the Trial Court should not continue. Keeping in view their educational background, their employment status and that they are living together as couples, the 2nd respondent being satisfied that she would be well taken care with all love and affection by the 1st petitioner, she has come forward to file the affidavit.

In the circumstances, it would just and appropriate to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel at the bar and to quash the pending proceedings in the Trial Court. The 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent have arrived at a genuine understanding to lead their matrimonial life, which has to encouraged.

Any continuance of the pending proceedings may harm the matrimonial relationship between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent. In view of the assurances held out by the 1st petitioner that he would take care of the 2nd respondent with all love and affection and that he would not give room for any complaint of harassment being lodged by the 2nd respondent against him, in the interest of justice, I would deem it appropriate to grant the relief.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No. 220/2009 on the file of Jalahalli police and C.C. No. 29005/2009 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, stand quashed.