V. Dinamani vs The State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are present. The learned Counsel for the petitioner present. Sri. P.D. Pradeep Kumar files Vakalath for 2nd respondent. Both the parties have filed a joint memo submitting that they have compromised the matter and they are living together. Therefore, the 2nd respondent don''t want to proceed with the case against the petitioner in C.C. No. 2556/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of I.P.C. pending on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in a decision reported in:

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, wherein it is held that:

"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 and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, and Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others, require reconsideration.

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 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 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 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 proceedings".

By applying the above said principle to the facts of this case, it is seen that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent being husband and wife were lived together and thereafter, due to some differences between them they separated and the wife had filed a criminal complaint in the above said criminal case. Now, the parties have compromised the matter and it is submitted in the joint memo and also orally before this Court by the parties that they are living together happily with each other. Therefore, the factual matrix exactly falls within the four corners of the above said guidelines of the Apex Court. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to quash the entire proceedings so as to enable the parties to live happily with each other in future.

Hence, the following Order:

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 2556/2014 pending on the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of I.P.C. is hereby quashed.