SRI ETHIRAJAN v. SMT JAYANTHI & Ors.

2 SMT JAYANTHI, W/O SRI KIRUBA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS NO 7/1, 100 FEET MAIN ROAD, BANASWADI, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA TEMPLE, BANGALORE 560 043 3 SMT JANAKI, W/O SRI JAGANNATH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O NO.E-1 AGARA KALAKERE MAIN ROAD ,BANAJRA LAYOUT HORAMAVU P.O BANGALORE-560 043. 4 SRI SRINIVAS NAIDU S/O MALLAMMA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O NO 23-A, METTU STREET, THIRTHANNI, TIRUVALLU DISTRICT TAMIL NADU - 602 001. 2 5 SMT KALAVATHI W/O SRINIVAS NAIDU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O NO 23-A, METTU STREET, THIRTHANNI, TIRUVALLU DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU- 602 001. 6 KIRUBA S/O R KITTAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEAS R/O NO.7/1, 100 Feet Main Road, Banaswadi, Near Raghavendra Temple, Bangalore-560 043. PETITIONERS ( By Smt.AKHILA H K, ADV.) AND : 1 STATE BY PULEKESHINAGAR POLICE, REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BANGALORE 2 SMT SANDHYA W/O SRI ETHIRAJ AGED ABOUT 26 YEAS R/O NO.1 II CROSS ROAD, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR BANGALORE 43. RESPONDENT ( By Sri P KARUNAKAR, HCGP FOR R1 Sri N P KALLESH GOWDA, ADV. FOR R2) 3 This Crl.P is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC, praying to quash the criminal case pending against the petitioners who are arraigned as accused 1 to 6 in CC No.24723/2010 at Annexure- A and B before the XI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. This Crl.P coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the following: ORDER In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC, the petitioners have sought for quashing the criminal prosecution launched against them in CC No.24723/2010 pending on the file of the XI Addl.CMM, Bangalore City.

2. Respondent No.2, Smt.Sandhya, wife of the 1st petitioner filed a private complaint alleging several offences against the petitioners. The said complaint was referred to the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC for investigation and report. After investigation, the police filed chargesheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of D P Act. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and ordered issue of summons to the petitioners. 4

3. The petitioners 4 and 5 are the parents-in-law of the complainant while the petitioner No.2 is the sister in law and petitioner No.3 is the aunt of petitioner No.1.

4. Today when the matter was listed for orders, a joint affidavit sworn to by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 came to be filed reporting that the differences between the husband and the wife have been thrashed out and they have decided to rejoin and continue their matrimonial life. Therefore, they have sought for quashing the prosecution launched. Both the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent are before this Court in person and admit the fact that they have sworn to the affidavit filed before this Court.

5. No doubt, the offences alleged in the chargesheet are not compoundable. The question as to whether the High court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.PC could quash a prosecution launched on the basis that the parties have amicably settled their differences arose for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh -vs- State 5 of Punjab and another reported in 2012 AIR SCW 5333. The Apex Court answering the said question in the affirmative has stated thus; “quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchanageable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a Court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal Court is circumscribed by the povisions contained in Section 320 and the Court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endagers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he 6 However, and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes., like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash, the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R. If it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings; justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.”

6. In the present case arising out of the matrimonial differences between the 1st petitioner/husband and the 2nd respondent/wife, all the family members of the 1st petitioner have been arraigned as accused. It is now stated by the 7 complainant as well as the husband that they have no differences and have agreed to live together and continue their matrimonial life. It is also stated in the affidavit that the complainant on account of misunderstanding which cropped up in the family and on account of strained relationship, complaint came to be launched. Having regard to the fact that the wife, who was stated to be the victim of cruelty, has now agreed to join her husband and continue the matrimonial life, continuing the prosecution would be an exercise in futility and also waste of precious time of the Court. Having regard to the amicable settlement arrived at between the complainant/2nd respondent and the petitioners, there is no point in pursuing the prosecution. Hence, the affidavit filed by the 1st petitioner/husband and the 2nd respondent/wife is accepted and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the prosecution against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. In the result, the petition is allowed. The prosecution launched against the petitioners in CC No.24723/2010 before 8 the XI Additional ACMM, Bangalore City, is hereby quashed. Sd/- JUDGE bkm.