SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Krishna S/O. Hanumanth Kundgol vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 April, 2014

Karnataka High Court Krishna S/O. Hanumanth Kundgol vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 April, 2014Author: K.N.Phaneendra

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014

BEFORE

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100478/2014

BETWEEN:

1. KRISHNA

S/O. HANUMANTH KUNDGOL

AGE: 40 YEARS,

OCC: TEACHER

R/O. INDIRA NAGAR,

ALANAVAR TOWN,

TQ & DIST: DHARWAD

2. HANUMANTHA S/O. NARASAPPA

KUNDGOL @ VADDAR

AGE: 66 YEARS

OCC: RTD. TEACHER

R/O. INDIRA NAGAR ALANAVAR

TQ & DIST: DHARWAD

3. SAROJA W/O. HANUMANTH

KUNDGOL @ VADDAR

AGE: 60 YEARS

OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK

R/O. INDIRA NAGAR ALANAVAR

TQ & DIST: DHARWAD

4. VIJAYLAXMI @ LAXMI

W/O. SHANKAR VADDAR @ KUNDGOL

AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER

2

NOW AT R/O. INDIRA NAGAR,

ALANAVAR,

TQ & DIST: DHARWAD .

.. PETITIONERS

(BY SRI VASANT G. HOLEYANNAVAR, FOR SRI G.A.HOLEYANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

P S I ALANVAR POLICE STATION

ALNAVAR

TQ & DIST: DHARWAD

2. SMT. SAVITRI W/O. KRISHNA KUNDGOL AGE: 27 YEARS,

OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK

R/O. INDIRA NAGAR,

NEAR BUS STOP, ALANAVAR TOWN

TQ & DIST: DHARWAD

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1;

SRI ARUNKUMAR P. SHIRATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 4/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 IN C.C.NO.952/2012 (ANNEXURE-A) ON THE FILE OF THE II- ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC II-COURT, DHARWAD ON THE BASIS OF FIR AND COMPLAINT BY ALANVAR POLICE STATION CRIME NO.82/2011 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.

3

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-

State and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the

records.

2. Petitioners and respondent No.2 are present. All of

them have admitted the compromise entered into between

them before this Court.

3. This petition is filed for quashing of the proceedings

in C.C. No.952/2012 which is registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘I.P.C.’ for brevity).

4. On 26.03.2014 emergent notice was ordered to

respondent No.2 – Smt. Savitri. Respondent No.2 is present 4

before the Court. Sri Arunkumar P. Shiratti, learned

counsel has filed vakalath for respondent No.2. The parties

have filed compromise petition before this Court under

Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for brevity). In the affidavit

respondent No.2 has categorically stated that she is the

legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1 and has filed a

complaint in Crime No.82/2011 on the file of Alnavar Police

for the above said offences. It is further stated that after

filing of case, herself and petitioner No.1 have compromised

the matter and though they are residing in separate houses,

but they are living happily with each other. In view of the

compromise entered into between the parties, the divorce

petition filed by petitioner No.1 – husband in M.C.

No.329/2011 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Dharwad,

and the maintenance petition filed by respondent No.2 – wife

in Crl. Misc. No.140/2013 were withdrawn. 5

5. As the offence punishable under Section 498A of

I.P.C. is non-compoundable in nature, the parties have

moved this Court for quashing of the proceedings. It is

worth to note a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in a case

reported in –

(2012) 10 SCC 303 between Gian Singh vs. State of

Punjab and Another.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment at

paragraph 61 has laid down certain principles that under

what facts and circumstances the Court can exercise powers

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to permit the parties to

compound the offences even though the offences are non-

compoundable in nature. It goes without saying so far as

this case is concerned. The offences alleged against

petitioners by respondent No.2 are non-compoundable in

nature. Paragraph 61 of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

reads thus-

6

” The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, 7

any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In 8

other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.

(emphasis supplied)

6. This Court had an occasion to deal with similar set

of facts, which is involved in this particular case. In a case

reported in-

2012 (3) KCCR 2338 between Prashant vs. State of

Karnataka and Another, wherein it has been held that- 9

“CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 – Section 482 – To quash the proceeding registered on the basis of FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 307 of I.P.C. – Petitioner is the husband of the second respondent – Facts – Petitioner alleged to be flirting with other women and started ill-treating the second respondent – Petitioner was arrested on this background – As on date, petitioner and second respondent have reconciled and are living peacefully without any problems between them – Objection – Maintainability of petition – Non-compoundable offences – Question of quashing the proceedings and seeking to initiate and withdraw proceeding at their, whim and fancy would make a mockery of justice system.”

8. This Court while dealing with the matter relied upon

plethora of decisions ultimately held that particularly in

matrimonial matters Court can exercise powers under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This Court has also relied upon the

rulings of Apex Court, reported in – 10

AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1969 between Madan

Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab.

(2008) 16 Supreme Court Cases 1 between Manoj

Sharma vs. State and Others.

In view of the above said principles, the parties are

permitted to compound the offences.

9. On meaningful reading and understanding of the

above said cases the Apex Court has laid down the

principles, particularly, as quoted above at para 61, that the

High Court can quash the criminal proceedings, if in its view

the compromise between the offender and the victim is

genuine, if there are very remote and bleak chances of

conviction, if continuation of criminal case would put the

accused to great oppression and if any prejudice and

extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing

the criminal case despite full and complete settlement of

compromise with the victim. Therefore, the Apex Court has 11

cautioned that the High Court must consider the facts of

individual case to ascertain whether it would be unfair or

contrary to justice to continue with the criminal proceedings

or continuation of the criminal proceedings would

tantamount to abuse of process of law. Despite settlement

between the parties the Apex Court has observed that under

the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, in the cases

of dacoity and in the serious cases where public interest is

affected in such cases the Court should be very careful in

exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

10. In the above said backdrop, the present case has to

be analysed. It is a case between the husband and wife, as

already noted above, the wife has filed complaint against the

husband. There was no injury as such caused to the wife in

this case. So far as section 498A is concerned, parties have

compounded the said offences between each other. When it

is categorically said by way of affidavit that the parties have

compounded the matter and they are happily residing 12

together, in the event if the said criminal case is continued

there is no chance of respondent No.2, who is the sole

pivotal witness, supporting the case of prosecution. As

could be seen from the entire papers on record, the entire

case of prosecution stands on the statement of respondent

No.2. If she is not willing to continue the case there are very

remote chances of conviction in this case. Moreover, it is

quite natural that quarrel takes place between husband and

wife for a silly reason. Sometimes due to verbal altercation

between the husband and wife, the husband may lose

temper and control over his mind and try to do some

unpleasant acts. Such acts should be controlled by wife in

order to benefit the family members. Looking to the

circumstances prevailing in this particular case and also

applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court and as

well as this Court in the decisions cited above, I am of the

considered opinion that this is also a fit case where this

Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

to quash the proceedings as sought for. 13

11. It is noted above that husband and wife have

compromised the matter and are living together happily after

compounding all their previous misdeeds between

themselves. As the offence punishable under Section 498A

is non-compoundable and when it is categorically stated that

the said offence though non-compoundable but the parties

have compromised the offence and the trial Court has no

jurisdiction under Section 320(1) & (2) of Cr.P.C. to permit

the parties to enter into compromise. However, in view of

the above said decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, in order to

keep the harmony between parties and for the betterment of

future of the couple, the Court in extraneous circumstances

can exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Under

the above said circumstances, there is no legal impediment

for this Court to exercise the powers under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. Therefore, petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the following order is passed : 14

ORDER

i) Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

is allowed.

ii) The proceedings in C.C. No.952/2012

pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge

& J.M.F.C. Court, Dharwad, is hereby

quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

hnm/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation