Skip to content


N.A. Muthappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Petition No.4773 of 2014
Judge
AppellantN.A. Muthappa and Others
RespondentState of Karnataka and Another
Excerpt:
.....no legal impediment for this court to quash entire proceedings – even if offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and court was satisfied that parties have settled same amicably and without any pressure, it is held that for purpose of securing ends of justice, section 320 crpc would not be bar to exercise of power of quashing of fir, complaint or subsequent criminal proceedings - in order to facilitate parties to live happily in their future, compromise entered into between them before mediation centre, was also to be accepted by this court for purpose of quashing proceedings – proceeding pending for offences punishable under sections 498-a ipc and sections 3, 4 and 6 of d.p. act r/w section 34 ipc was quashed – petition allowed. case..........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.pc does not limit or affect the powers of the high court under section 482 crpc. 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 crpc 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......
Judgment:

(Prayer: This Crl.P Is Filed U/S.482 Cr.P.C Praying To Quash The Criminal Proceedings Initiated In C.C.No.8071/13 On The File Of The Iii Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore For The Alleged Offnces P/U/S 3, 4 And 6 Of D.P. Act And Sec. 34 And 498a Of Ipc Against The Petitioners.)

1. Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 and Respondent No.2 along with their respective counsel are present before the court. The presence of Petitioner Nos. 2, 4 and 5, who are close relatives of Petitioner No.1, is dispensed with.

2. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent have compromised the entire conflict between themselves before the Bangalore Mediation Centre and they have entered into a Memorandum of Settlement under Section 89 of C.P.C..

3. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the 2nd respondent. It is an undisputed fact that Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 have separating themselves. The family dispute gave rise to a criminal case in C.C. No.8071/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 34 IPC and also under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also a case in C. Misc. No.25/2014 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The parties have also approached the family court for dissolution of their marriage in M.C. No.2740/2013.

4. It is seen from the records that the family court has referred the parties to the Bangalore Mediation Centre for exploring the possibility of settlement. The parties have entered into a Memorandum of Settlement resolving the entire conflict between themselves. The parties have produced the said Memorandum of Understanding, Paras-3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of which reveal that the parties have settled the matter for a sum of Rs.7.00 lakhs to be payable by the petitioner to Respondent No.2 in two installments. The petitioner has agreed to pay the 1st installment of Rs.3.50 lakhs at the time of reporting settlement before the Family Court and accordingly they have paid the said amount and Respondent No.2 has received the same. The petitioner also agreed to pay the remaining amount at the time of submitting compromise petition between the parties seeking quashing of the proceedings before this court. On the previous date of hearing i.e., on 12.09.2014, Petitioner No.1, who was present before the court, had made payment of Rs.3.50 lakhs towards second installment of compensation and the same was received by the mother of the 2nd respondent-Smt. P.D. Veena, who was present before the court, as, on that day, the 2nd respondent herein could not appear before the court. Today, the 2nd respondent, who is present before the court ratified the payment of amount by Petitioner No.1 in favour of her, through her mother Smt. P.D. Veena. It is submitted by both the parties that all the conditions enumerated in the compromise petition have already been complied with and they pray for quashing the entire proceedings in C.C. No.8071/2013. Therefore, at this stage, there is absolutely no legal impediment for this court to quash the entire proceedings.

5. Before granting such permission to compound the offences, it is relevant to refer to the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others -vs- Babita Raghuvanshi and another ( (2013) 4 SCC 58), wherein dealing with the provisions of Section 482 and 320 of Criminal Procedure Code, it has ruled as follows :

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

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 CrPC 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 CrPC 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 CrPC 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."

6. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in order to facilitate the parties to live happily in their future, the compromise entered into between them before the Mediation Centre at Bangalore, is also to be accepted by this court for the purpose of quashing the proceedings.

7. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the following order is passed:-

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceeding pending in C.C. No.8071/2013 on the file of the III Additional C.M.M., Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P.Act r/w. Section 34 of IPC is hereby quashed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //