SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Yashi Jain vs State Of Karnataka on 21 June, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA

CRL.P. NO.2332/2018
C/W.
CRL.P. NO.2333/2018

BETWEEN

YASHI JAIN
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
W/O ANKIT JAIN
R/O FLAT NO 101, 1ST FLOOR
COMFORT GANGALXMI APARTMENT
5TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN
BANGALORE 560 027 … PETITIONER

(BY SRI. KAPIL DIXIT, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALROE 560 001
YESHWANTHA PURA P.S.

2. ANKIT JAIN
S/O SRI RAJKUMAR JAIN
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
NO.629/22, 14TH MAIN
1ST BLOCK, GOKUL LAYOUT
MATHIKERI
BENGALURU – 560 054 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
2

SRI. S. Y. KUMBAR, ADV. AND
SRI. SHIVASHANKAR S. K., ADV. FOR R2.)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.16183/2015 PENDING BEFORE THE XXIV
A.C.M.M., BANGALORE INITIATED UNDER FIR
NO.422/2014 REGISTERED AT YESHWANTHAPURA P.S.,
AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.2 U/S 471,420,468 OF IPC
BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION.

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes

notice for respondent No.1 – State in both the cases.

Learned counsel Sri Shiva Shankar files vakalath for

respondent No.2.

2. The Petitioner in both these Criminal Petitions,

Mrs. Yashi Jain, is present before the court and she has

filed affidavit reporting that the matter has been

compromised between the parties i.e., the complainant as

well as the respondents/petitioner and the eye witnesses

herein. The petitions are filed by her seeking quashing of

the proceedings in SC No.803/2014 on the file of the 65th

Addl. CC Sessions Judge, now pending on the file of the
3

71st Addl. City Civil Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the

offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 468, 307

and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961 and also for quashing of the CC No.16183/2015

pending on the file of the 24th ACMM, Bengaluru arising out

of FIR No.422/2014.

3. The petitioner has filed the above said petitions in

fact on the basis that the parties have compromised the

matter and the dispute has been completely resolved in a

divorce petition filed by respondent No.2, the husband of

the petitioner in MC No.3011/2016. The petitioner has

also furnished the compromise petition filed before the

said Family Court in MC No.3011/2016, wherein the parties

have arrived at a compromise wherein at paragraph 10 of

the compromise petition, the respondent therein i.e., the

petitioner herein has categorically accepted and agreed to

withdraw or participate to close all the criminal cases filed

against the petitioner immediately after reporting this

settlement and closing all the criminal cases filed against

the respondent herein immediately after reporting the

settlement before the MC Court. The said compromise
4

petition was placed for consideration on the file of the III

Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in the said

case and the court has recorded the compromise and

however ordered and decreed to dissolve the marriage

between the petitioner and the second respondent.

4. Before this court also, re-iterating the petition

averments, the petitioner has filed two separate affidavits

reiterating the compromise between the parties. There is

no dispute between the parties that the petitioner is the

wife of the second respondent and due to some mis-

conception of fact, the complaints have been lodged by the

petitioner against the second respondent and his family

members. Now, in view of the divorce taken place

between the petitioner and the second respondent, the

entire conflict between the parties have been resolved

though the offences u/s.307 of IPC is charged in SC

No.803/2014 is heinous and serious in nature. In view of

the compromise between the parties, considering their

relationship, I am of the opinion that the compromise has

to be accepted.
5

5. This Court relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 between

GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHER,

wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed thus –

“Inherent power of High Court under
S.482 to quash criminal proceedings involving
non-compoundable offences in view of the
compromise arrived at between the parties. It
is further held that, power of High Court in
quashing a criminal proceeding of FIR or
complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction
is distinct and different from power of a
criminal court of compounding offences under
S.320 – Cases where power to quash criminal
proceedings may be exercised where the
parties have settled their dispute, held,
depends on facts and circumstances of each
case – Before exercise of inherent quashment
power under S.482, High Court must have due
regard to nature and gravity of the crime and
its societal impact. Thus, held, heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity, murder,
rape, dacoity, etc., or under special statutes
like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences
committed by public servants, cannot be
quashed even though victim or victim’s family
and offender have settled the dispute – Such
6

offences are not private in nature and have a
serious impact on society. But criminal cases
having overwhelmingly and predominatingly
civil flavour stand on a different footing –
Offences arising from commercial financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or like
transactions or offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family
disputes where the wrong is basically private
or personal in nature and parties have resolved
their entire dispute, High Court may quash
criminal proceedings – High Court, in such
cases, must consider whether it would be
unfair or contrary to interest of justice to
continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between parties
and whether to secure ends of justice, it is
appropriate the criminal case it put to an end.
If such question(s) are answered in the
affirmative, High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

6. At this stage, it is worth to note hear a decision

of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466

[ Narinder Singh Ors Vs. State of Punjab and

Anr.], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the
7

guidelines in respect of accepting the compromise entered

into between the parties pertaining to offence under

Section 307 of IPC. The court under the peculiar

circumstances of the case has observed that, depending

upon the factual aspects of each case, if the court is of the

opinion that such compromise can be recorded, then there

is no embargo under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. for the court to

record such compromise in the interest of justice.

7. Among the above said cases, in one of the case,

the court has come to the conclusion that the offence

punishable u/s.307 of IPC is heinous and serious in nature

and has some impact on the society in spite of that the

Hon’ble Apex Court has said that the discretion vests with

the court to – speak the circumstance of the particular

case and if the court feels that the compromise will set all

the disputes between the parties at rest, it will virtually

facilitate the parties to compromise the matter and

thereafter, in such circumstance to avoid future obligations

and future litigations between the parties, the court can

accept such terms.
8

8. In view of the above said dictum and particularly

the factual matrix available in this particular case as I have

already narrated, it is a fit case where the parties can be

permitted to compromise the matter. Hence, the affidavits

filed by the petitioner and the second respondent are

hereby accepted. And consequently, I pass the following:

ORDER

Both the petitions are allowed. Consequently, the

entire proceedings in (1) SC No.803/2014 pending on the

file of the 71st City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for

the offence punishable under Section 498A, 307, 506,

323, 325 of IPC and also u/s.3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act; and (2) CC No.16183/2015 pending on

the file of the 24th Addl. CMM, Bengaluru, arising out of FIR

No.422/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections

471, 420, 468 of IPC; are hereby quashed so far as the

respective petitioners are concerned.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PL*

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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