Karnataka High Court Amoret Paul Samraj K vs The State By Ulsoorgate Mahila … on 27 March, 2014Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2319 OF 2013
AMORET PAUL SAMRAJ K,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
S/O P. KANAGARAJ,
R/AT 17, 21ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
NEAR CHAVARA CHURCH,
EJIPURA, VIVEKANAGAR POST,
BANGALORE – 560 047. …PETITIONER (BY SMT: RAMA R IYER, ADVOCATE FOR LEGAL SOLUTIONS)
1. THE STATE BY ULSOORGATE
MAHILA POLICE STATION,
AND ALSO BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. RACHITHA POORNIMA CABRAL,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
W/O AMORET PAUL SAMRAJ K,
R/AT C/O. DR. HONEY CABRAL,
KARNATAKA TECHNOLOGICAL COLLEGE,
BALMATTO, MANGALORE – 575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: B J ESWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1,
RESPONDENT NO.2 IS PRESENT)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.32465/2011 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.2/2011 LODGED IN ULSOORGATE MAHILA POLICE STATION, INITIATED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER PENDING BEFORE VI ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
The accused in C.C.32465/2011 pending on the file of VI Addl. CMM, Bangalore, has come up in this proceedings seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated to punish him for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Admittedly, the proceedings in C.C.32465/2011 is initiated pursuant to a complaint filed by the second respondent herein.
2. The petitioner and the second respondent are the husband and wife. Subsequent to the complaint filed by the second respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry 3
Prohibition Act, a petition in M.C.29/2011 is filed by the wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and in the said proceedings, she sought for interim maintenance under Section 22(3) of the said Act. Thereafter, it is noticed that a settlement is arrived at between the parties and pursuant to that, a Joint Memo is filed by the petitioner and the second respondent in M.C.377/2011 under Section 10-A and 44 of the Divorce Act seeking decree of divorce by mutual consent.
3. The proceedings in M.C.377/2011 is decreed pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties wherein the petitioner herein has given a residential vacant site in favour of the second respondent-complainant and in addition to that, he has also paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to his wife towards past, present and future maintenance. By accepting the site and cash in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards maintenance as stated above, the complainant has agreed for a decree of divorce and accordingly, the marriage 4
between them is dissolved by an order dated 20.4.2012 in M.C.377/2011.
4. Subsequently, the settlement which was arrived at between the parties is brought to the notice of the Court of JMFC, Mangalore, where M.C.29/2011 which was filed under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was pending and thereafter, the said petition is disposed of by filing a Joint Memo on 17.4.2012. With this, the dispute between the parties so far as dissolution of marriage and domestic violence has reached finality.
5. The terms of understanding between the parties is to the effect that in pursuance of the divorce being granted in favour of petitioner and the second respondent in dissolving their marriage and domestic violence proceedings initiated by the wife being quashed, the proceedings which is initiated by the wife under Sections 498A and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is also required to 5
be withdrawn. Hence, it is submitted in the present petition that the proceedings may be closed.
6. Though in normal circumstances, the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not compoundable, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of GIAN SINGH V/S. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has observed that the proceedings which are initiated with reference to offence punishable other than for the act of dacoity, murder, rape and other offences and if it is in respect of matrimonial dispute and financial matters, if it is settled between the parties for their better prospects, then the High Court by taking note of the same, can quash the proceedings in the interest of parties.
7. Following the aforesaid judgment and considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is settled amicably in dissolving the marriage between the petitioner 6
and the second respondent, the proceedings initiated by the complainant-second respondent herein under Sections 498A and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which is pending consideration in C.C.32465/2011 on the file of VI Addl. CMM, Bangalore, is hereby quashed.