Karnataka High Court Ramesh S/O. Manikrao Bhosale vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 March, 2014Author: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100273/2014
BETWEEN:
1. RAMESH
S/O. MANIKRAO BHOSALE
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVANT
R/O. H NO. 1006, GOPAL NIVAS AT POST: KHADAKPURA,
TQ: KARMALA, DIST: SOLAPUR.
2. MANIKRAO
S/O. GOPALRAO BHOSALE
AGE: 67 YEARS,
OCC: RTD. BANK EMPLOYEE
R/O. H NO. 1006, GOPAL NIVAS AT POST: KHADAKPURA,
TQ: KARMALA, DIST: SOLAPUR.
3. SMT. BHIMABAI
W/O. MANIKRAO BHOSALE
AGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. H NO. 1006, GOPAL NIVAS AT POST: KHADAKPURA,
TQ: KARMALA, DIST: SOLAPUR
4. DR. PRAKASH
2
S/O. AMBADAS CHAWAN
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR
R/O. SUNDAR COMPLEX,
PLOT NO. 05, NEAR TARUN
BHARATH DAILY PRESS,
HOTAGI ROAD, SOLAPUR,
DIST: SOLAPUR.
5. SMT. JAYA W/O. PRAKASH CHAWAN AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: GOVERNMENT TEACHER
R/O. SUNDAR COMPLEX,
PLOT NO. 05, NEAR TARUN
BHARATH DAILY PRESS,
HOTAGI ROAD, SOLAPUR,.
DIST: SOLAPUR.
6. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O. THRIMBAK RAJMANE
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE
R/O. BAJI MARKET, JAWAL
AT POST: KARMALA,
TQ: KARMALA, DIST: SOLAPUR.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR WOMEN POLICE STATION,
HUBLI NORTH SUB-DIVISION
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. SMT. BHAGYASHREE
W/O. RAMESH BHOSALE
AGE: 28 YEARS,
3
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. EWS -279, NAVANAGAR,
HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.39/2012 ON THE FILE OF JMFC II-COURT, HUBLI, AS BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICES AND AS IS IT ALREADY AMICABLY RESOLVED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT NO.2 IN THE INTERVENTION OF THE FAMILY AND COMMUNITY ELDERS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 –
State. Perused the records.
2. The present petition is filed by petitioners seeking
quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No.39/2012 on
the file of II J.M.F.C. Court, Hubli. 4
3. The second respondent Smt. Bhagyashree has
lodged a complaint in P.C. No.325/2011 on the file of
J.M.F.C. II Court, Hubli, for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’ for
brevity) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1986. Subsequently, the said case was registered in C.C.
No.39/2012 and summons was issued. Accordingly,
petitioners herein, who were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 6
in the said case were enlarged on bail. The matter is
pending before trial Court for trial. Thereafter, husband and
wife have filed a consent divorce petition before the Family
Court, Hubli in M.C. No.248/2013, which is also pending
before Court.
4. At this juncture, petitioner No.1 and respondent
No.2 have appeared before this Court and have admitted
that they have entered into a compromise. Respondent
No.2, in particular, has submitted that by virtue of 5
compromise entered into between herself and her husband –
petitioner No.1, the entire proceedings in C.C. No.39/2012
may be quashed. In view of the above said factual aspects,
it is just and necessary to look into the legal aspect that,
whether a non-compoundable offence punishable under
Section 498A can be ordered to be compounded by
exercising the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for
brevity). In this regard, it is worth to note two decisions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and one decision of this Court,
which are as under :
i) (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 between
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another.
ii) 2013 CRI. L. J. 520 between Dimpey Gujral
and Ors. vs. Union Territory Through
Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and Ors.
iii) 2012(3) KCCR 2338 between Prashant vs.
State of Karnataka and Another. 6
In the above said cases, particularly, it is held that –
“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.
In cases where power to quash the criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR 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 or under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity as Government servants cannot be 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. But the criminal cases 7
having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for 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. The High Court may quash the criminal proceedings.
(emphasis supplied)
5. In view of the above said ruling of Hon’ble Supreme
Court, this Court had an occasion to deal with such matter
and this Court has quashed the proceedings before trial
Court for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506 and 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C.
6. Applying the above said principles to this case, it is
one such case where the matrimonial dispute between the
parties have ended up in a compromise. Therefore, I do not 8
find any strong reasons to reject the prayer of parties. With
these observations, petition is allowed. The entire
proceedings in C.C. No.39/2012 on the file of J.M.F.C. II
Court, Hubli, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
hnm/
