Karnataka High Court
Rakesh vs State Of Karnataka on 9 September, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
CRL.P No. 4477 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4477 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
RAKESH,
S/O LATE KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
R/AT WATER TANK,
NEAR DODDASANNE VILLAGE,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINATHA B.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110,
Digitally signed by REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
NAGAVENI ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Location: HIGH DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. XXX,
W/O RAKESH,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
RESIDING AT WATER TANK,
NEAR DODDASANNE VILLAGE,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MANJUNATH K.A, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
CRL.P No. 4477 of 2024
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.310/2024 (CR.NO.22/2024,
DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT)
WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-III, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
376(2)(n) OF IPC AND SEC. 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC. 9 OF
PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following
prayer:
a) Quash the entire proceedings in
Spl.C.C.No.310/2024, (Crime No.22/2024,
Devanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru Rural
District) which is pending on the file of the
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-III,
Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under
Sections 376(2) n IPC and 6 POCSO Act, 2012
and 9 of prohibition of child.
b) Pass any such order/s as this Honourable Court
may deems fit in the interest of justice and
equity."
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Srinatha B.V.,
appearing for the petitioner, the learned High Court
Government Pleader Sri.Thejesh P., appearing for respondent
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
No.1 and the learned counsel Sri.Manjunath K.A., appearing for
respondent No.2.
3. The petitioner is the sole accused in
Spl.C.C.No.310/2024 registered for offences punishable under
Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Sections 4
and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
and Sections 376, 376(2)(n) of the IPC. C.W.2 is the victim. It
is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had indulged
in certain acts that would become the ingredients of the
offences so alleged at the time when the victim - C.W.2 was
aged 17 years and 10 months and the petitioner was 20 years
old. The act of the petitioner with the victim - C.W.2 had
resulted in the victim becoming pregnant and after the victim
attained the age of 18 years, which was two months away from
the date of the incident, the parents of the victim and the
accused wanted to get them married, but the petitioner was
housed in prison on the score that he is accused for the
afore-quoted offences. Successive application seeking his
enlargement on bail also came to be rejected. Both the
accused and the victim who wanted to restart their life together
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
on a new beginning approached the doors of this Court, in the
subject petition.
4. Both victim - C.W.No.2 and the petitioner projected
that they would wanted to settle the issue and wanted to get
married. Since the petitioner was in prison, this Court granted
an interim bail to let the petitioner to get married to the victim,
as she was at the date of the order was 18 years and 4
months. The order dated 24.07.2024 reads as follows:
" The petitioner is before this Court calling in
question proceedings in Special C.C.No.310 of 2024
pending before the Additional City Civil & Sessions
Judge, FTSC-III, Bengaluru, arising out of crime in
Crime No.22 of 2024 registered for offences punishable
under Section 376 (2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offices Act, 2012 and
Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
2. Heard Sri Srinatha B V, learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent No.1 and Sri Manjunath K A., learned
counsel appearing for 2nd respondent.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
A complaint comes to be registered by the victim
stating that petitioner and the victim came in contact
with each other and they were in love. Thereafter, one
day the petitioner took the victim forcibly to his house
and had sexual intercourse with her. Though he was
aware of the fact that victim was a minor, the petitioner
had sexual intercourse with her on many occasions. Due
to this act, the victim has also given birth to a male
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
child during January 2024. On the basis of the
complaint so filed by the victim, the police conduct
investigation and file a charge sheet against the
accused/petitioner on 20-03-2024 and the matter is
now pending in Special Case No. 310 of 2024.
4. The petitioner/accused has been in judicial
custody from the date of registration of the complaint.
From the sexual act of the petitioner, the victim bears a
child. The present petition though is preferred seeking
annulment of entire proceedings, it is the submission of
the learned counsel appearing for both the petitioner
and the 2nd respondent, that the petitioner and the
victim were in love and at the point in time due to
sexual act, child is born. The parties are seeking closure
of these proceedings on account of desire of the
petitioner to get married to the victim as the victim and
her child are not left in lurch. Now the families are also
wanting to get the two married. Therefore, this petition
is preferred in the nature of compounding of the offence
on account of such compromise. At the time when the
petitioner was taken into custody, the victim had not
yet completed 18 years.
5. The victim is now aged 18 years and,
therefore, the marriage is what is seen as the necessary
solution by the members of the families in the peculiar
facts of the case. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to
redeem the grievance of the families by permitting the
petitioner to get married to the victim, who is 18 years
old and for the purpose of the said marriage, I deem it
appropriate to grant the petitioner interim bail in
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
enabling the petitioner to come out and get married to
the victim.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, while keeping the
petition pending, I deem it appropriate to pass the
following order:
ORDER
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
a. The petitioner shall be released on grant of
interim bail which will be operational from 29-07-
2024 upto 17-08-2024.
b. The petitioner shall return to the goal on the
evening of 17-08-2024.
c. The Certificate of evidence of marriage shall be
placed before the Court on the next date of
hearing.
d. The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a
week before the jurisdictional Police Station.
e. It is made clear that any deviation of the purpose
for which the interim bail is granted, would be
taken seriously.
7. List the matter on 19-08-2024, in the fresh
matters list."
It was further clarified on 30.07.2024, it reads as follows:
"This court on 24.07.2024 had passed the following
order:
"The petitioner is before this Court calling in
question proceedings in Special C.C.No.310 of 2024
pending before the Additional City Civil & Sessions
Judge, FTSC-III, Bengaluru, arising out of crime in
Crime No.22 of 2024 registered for offences punishable
under Section 376 (2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offices Act, 2012 and
Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
2. Heard Sri Srinatha B V, learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent No.1 and Sri Manjunath K A., learned
counsel appearing for 2nd respondent.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
A complaint comes to be registered by the victim
stating that petitioner and the victim came in contact
with each other and they were in love. Thereafter, one
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
day the petitioner took the victim forcibly to his house
and had sexual intercourse with her. Though he was
aware of the fact that victim was a minor, the petitioner
had sexual intercourse with her on many occasions. Due
to this act, the victim has also given birth to a male
child during January 2024. On the basis of the
complaint so filed by the victim, the police conduct
investigation and file a charge sheet against the
accused/petitioner on 20-03-2024 and the matter is
now pending in Special Case No. 310 of 2024.
4. The petitioner/accused has been in judicial
custody from the date of registration of the complaint.
From the sexual act of the petitioner, the victim bears a
child. The present petition though is preferred seeking
annulment of entire proceedings, it is the submission of
the learned counsel appearing for both the petitioner
and the 2nd respondent, that the petitioner and the
victim were in love and at the point in time due to
sexual act, child is born. The parties are seeking closure
of these proceedings on account of desire of the
petitioner to get married to the victim as the victim and
her child are not left in lurch. Now the families are also
wanting to get the two married. Therefore, this petition
is preferred in the nature of compounding of the offence
on account of such compromise. At the time when the
petitioner was taken into custody, the victim had not
yet completed 18 years.
5. The victim is now aged 18 years and,
therefore, the marriage is what is seen as the necessary
solution by the members of the families in the peculiar
facts of the case. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to
redeem the grievance of the families by permitting the
petitioner to get married to the victim, who is 18 years
old and for the purpose of the said marriage, I deem it
appropriate to grant the petitioner interim bail in
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
enabling the petitioner to come out and get married to
the victim.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, while keeping the
petition pending, I deem it appropriate to pass the
following order:
ORDER
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
a. The petitioner shall be released on grant of
interim bail which will be operational from
29-07-2024 upto 17-08-2024.
b. The petitioner shall return to the goal on
the evening of 17-08-2024.
c. The Certificate of evidence of marriage
shall be placed before the Court on the
next date of hearing.
d. The petitioner shall mark his attendance
once in a week before the jurisdictional
Police Station.
e. It is made clear that any deviation of the
purpose for which the interim bail is
granted, would be taken seriously.
7. List the matter on 19-08-2024, in
the fresh matters list."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has moved the
matter before this Court seeking a direction to the Jail
Authorities to release the petitioner in terms of the
interim bail so granted.
The Jail Authorities are hereby directed to release
the petitioner on 01.08.2024.
The registry is directed to communicate this order
to Jail Authorities forthwith."
5. After the aforesaid orders, the petitioner is back to
the gaol or prison after getting married. The issue now would
be whether this Court would close the proceedings against the
petitioner on the aforesaid score.
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
6. The petitioner has also produced the certificate of
marriage, which was pursuant to the orders passed by this
Court, as also the report of the DNA of the child, which matches
the DNA of both the parents, as biological father and mother.
In the considered view of this Court, the victim was aged 17
years and 10 months. The petitioner was a boy of aged 20
years old. They were in love and the blossoming of love
between the two, led to the act that became an offence under
the IPC and POCSO. The hard reality is, the petitioner even if
trial is permitted to be continued will not be convicted, as the
victim herself wants to lead a life with the petitioner. The
parents of the victim also want them to live happily. Except the
Investigating Officer, there would be no witness who speak
against the petitioner. These are hard realities. It is necessary
of this Court to take note of hard realities and ensure justice to
the victim. Justice at times is not conviction, justice at times,
is to let them live happily. No doubt the offence is under
POCSO Act but, if the petitioner is permitted to be tried and the
trial would go on for a long time, the victim who is now to take
care of a child, which is just born will be left in the lurch, as
taking care of the child would pose grave difficulties to the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
victim. In that light, in the peculiar circumstances, I deem it
appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., accept the compounding of the offence by the parties
and close the proceedings against the petitioner, so that the
petitioner lives happily with a rider that in the event the
petitioner would leave the mother and the child in the lurch, he
would run the risk of the revival of the present impugned
proceedings.
7. It is germane to notice that several Constitutional
Courts have closed the proceedings against the accused who
gets married to the victim during the pendency of the
proceedings and the said marriage being valid in the eye of law
with production of adequate documents. In this regard, it
would be useful to refer to the judgments of the Co-ordinate
benches of this Court in plethora of cases. A Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in Crl.P.No.1415/2021 following the judgments
rendered by other Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the
following cases:
(i) Crl.P.No.4556/2020 DD 2-11-2020;
(ii) Crl.P.No.136/2020 DD 8-01-2020;
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
(iii) Crl.P.No.5922/2019 DD 11-09-2019;
(iv) Crl.P.No.3162/2018 DD 18-06-2018
by its order dated 30-06-2021 has held as follows:
"2. The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in
Special Case No.206/2017 pending on the file of
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, arising out
of Crime No.58/2017 registered by Arasikere Town Police
Station, Hassan, for the offences punishable under
Sections 363, 366A, 370, 376, Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO
Act, 2012 of IPC and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, have approached
this court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in
the said case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned counsel for the second respondent-complainant
would jointly submit that the marriage of the victim girl
has been performed with the first petitioner herein on 5th
July 2018 and the said marriage is also registered before
the office of Registrar of Marriage, Arasikere. They
submit that from the wedlock, the first petitioner and his
wife, who is the victim girl have two children. They would
submit that the dispute between the parties has been
amicably settled and it is only thereafterwards marriage
has taken place and they are all residing together happily.
The affidavit of the complainant is also filed and
paragraphs-2 to 4 of the said affidavit read as follows:
"2. I submit that the above criminal petition is
filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the entire
proceedings in Special Case No.206/2017 (Crime
No.58/2017) registered by the 1st respondent pending on
the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Hassan District, Hassan, wherein the petitioners have
been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under
Section 363,366(A), 370, 376 of IPC and Sections 4,8 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012
and Sections 9,10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage
Act 2006.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
3. I submit that the petitioner No.1 is my son-
in-law and the petitioner No.2 and 3 are his parents. I
submit that due to the intervention of the elder family
members and well wishers the petitioners and my family
and I have resolved my misunderstanding which was
crept in.
4. I submit that my daughter by name
Smt.Ranjitha has been legally married to the 1st petitioner
and out of the wed-lock 2 children have been begotten by
name Moulya aged 3.5 years and Monica aged about 9
months. The 1st petitioner and my daughter are leading
their happy life till today. I submit that the above said
complaint has been filed under a mistaken notion and I
hereby withdraw the entire allegations made in Crime
No.58/2017 (Spl.Case No.206/2017). I submit that I
don't have any objection to quash the entire proceedings
against all the petitioners who are accused Nos.4,5 and 6
before the trial court."
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian
Singh -vs- State of Punjab & Others1, has held in
paragraph-61 as under:
"61. 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 FIR may be exercised where
the offender and 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,
(2012)10 SCC 303
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and offender in relation
to the offences under special statutes like 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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand
on 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, 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 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 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."
5. In identical circumstances, this court in the
following cases viz.,
(i) Criminal Petition No.4556/2020 DD
02.11.2020;
(ii) Criminal Petition No.136/2020 DD
08.01.2020;
(iii) Criminal Petition No.5922/2019 DD
11.09.2019 and
(iv) Criminal Petition No.3162/2018 DD
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
18.06.2018,
taking into consideration the settlement
arrived at between the parties and also considering
the fact that the victim is now married to the
person, who had allegedly committed sexual assault
on her, has quashed the entire proceedings, which
were impugned in those petitions.
6. The respondent No.2-complainant has appeared
before the court through video conference. She has been
identified by her Advocate. She has stated that the
settlement is voluntary and her daughter, who is the
victim girl, is now married to the first petitioner herein
and from the wedlock, they have got two children and
they are all residing together happily.
7. Under the circumstances, no purpose would
be served in continuing the further proceedings as
against the petitioner and continuation of such
proceedings would be futile and it will amount to
abuse of the process of law. Therefore, for the
purpose of securing the ends of justice, I deem it
proper to quash the entire proceedings, which is
impugned in this petition."
(Emphasis supplied)
In Crl.P.No.4556/2020 (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court holds as follows:
1. "The petitioner is before this Court seeking for
quashing of the FIR registered in Crime No.26/2020 of
Bantwala Town Police for offences punishable under
Sections 376(2) (f), 376(2) (n), 506, 504, 323 of IPC
pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.)
and JMFC., Bantwal, D.K.District.
2. Respondent No.2 - complainant has filed an affidavit
stating that she is engaged to be married and in view
thereof, she does not want to continue the above
proceedings. Respondent No.2 - complainant is before
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
this Court by video conferencing and on enquiry she
reiterates the averments made in the affidavit and she
further submits that she has herself come forward to
withdraw the above complaint since she does not want
any complications in her future life.
3. However, her requests not having been accepted, she
has filed an affidavit before this Court stating no
objection to quash all the above proceedings against
the petitioner.
4. Respondent No.2 - complainant - Smt.Karishma Banu
is identified by her counsel Sri.Syed Akbar Pasha,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the petitioner
- P.B.Abdul Hameed, who is also present before this
Court by video conferencing is identified by his
counsel Sri.Lethif B., learned counsel for the
petitioner.
5. Accepting the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 and
the statement made by her that she does not intend
to continue with the proceedings any further and also
taking into consideration the decisions of this Court in
Crl.P 5922/2019 disposed of on 11.09.2019
[Gowardan and others vs. The State of
Karnataka], Crl.P No.3162/2018 disposed of on
18.06.2018 [Ramanand Pattath and State of
Karnataka and another] as also the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs.
State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10
SCC 303, wherein it has been held that even as
regards offences as alleged herein to the parties have
settled their dispute between themselves, this Court
would have the necessary power to quash any criminal
action arising out of the said offences."
In Crl.P.No.136/2020 (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court while quashing the proceedings has held as follows:
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
2. Sri Vijaya Kumar S/o Sri Siddagangaiah @
Mariyappa and Smt.Nayana W/o Vijaya Kumar are
present before the Court. Today they have filed a
joint affidavit of both petitioner-accused and
respondent No.2-complainant. In the joint affidavit
it is submitted that they have amicably settled the
matter out of the Court. The petitioner-accused has
agreed to take back respondent No.2 as his wife
and they are ready to reunion and live together by
dissolving their disputes. Even both the parents
have agreed to take them back. It is further
submitted that as per the school records the date of
birth of respondent No.2 is 6.2.2001 and she has
attained the age of majority and she is competent
to enter into compromise. They have also further
submitted that the said compromise is without
there being any threat, force, coercion, fraud or
misrepresentation. The said joint affidavit has been
signed by the petitioner-accused and respondent
No.2- complainant and same has been endorsed by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. When the Court asked a question to both the
parties, they submitted that since earlier they used to like
each other and now they intended to jointly live together
as husband and wife. At this juncture, it is worth to
mention here itself a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of J.Ramesh Kamath and Others Vs. Mohana
Kurupt and Others, reported in (2016) 12 SCC 179,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain
principles as to under what circumstances the Court can
quash the proceedings or compound the offences even in
respect of a non-compoundable offences, wherein it has
been held as under:-
"Held, power vested in High Court under S.482
is not limited to quashing proceedings within ambit
and scope of S.320 of Cr.P.C., - In Gian Singh,
(2012) 10 SCC 303, it was clearly expounded that
quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of
Cr.P.C., could also be based on settlements between
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
private parties, and could also be on a compromise
between the offender and victim - Only that, the
above power did not extend to crimes against the
society - Further, jurisdiction vested in High Court
under S.482 Cr.P.C., for quashing criminal
proceedings was held to be exercisable in criminal
cases having an overwhelming and predominatingly
civil flavour, particular offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership,
or such like transactions, or even offences arising out
of matrimony relating to dowry, etc., or family
disputes where wrong is basically private or
personal. In all such cases, parties should have
resolved their entire dispute by themselves,
mutually."
4. The Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the
principles of law laid down in the case of Gian Singh Vs.
State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10
SCC 303, wherein it has been observed that the Court
can exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case
and compound the offence. In the case of Narinder
Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another
reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, it has been observed as
under:
"8. We find that there are cases where the power
of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash
the proceedings in those offences which are
uncompoundable has been recognized. The only
difference is that under Section 320(1) of the Code, no
permission is required from the Court in those cases
which are compoundable though the Court has
discretionary power to refuse to compound the offence.
However, compounding under Section 320(1) of the Code
is permissible only in minor offences or in non-serious
offences. Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in
respect of offences enumerated in Section 320(2) of the
Code, compounding is permissible but it requires the
approval of the Court. Insofar as serious offences are
concerned, quashing of criminal proceedings upon
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
compromise is within the discretionary powers of the High
Court. In such cases, the power is exercised under
Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are quashed.
Contours of these powers were described by this Court in
B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana which has been followed
and further explained/elaborated in so many cases
thereafter, which are taken note of in the discussion that
follows hereinafter.
9. At the same time, one has to keep in mind the
subtle distinction between the power of compounding of
offences given to the Court under Section 320 of the Code
and quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction conferred upon it
under Section 482 of the Code. Once it is found that
compounding is permissible only if a particular offence is
covered by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code and
the Court in such cases is guided solitarily and squarely
by the compromise between the parties, insofar as power
of quashing under Section 482of the Code is concerned, it
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. Such a distinction is lucidly
explained by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab. Lodha, J. speaking for the
Court, explained the difference between the two
provisions in the following manner: (SCC pp.340-41,
paras 57 & 59).
"57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the
ground of settlement between an offender and victim
is not the same thing as compounding of offence.
They are different and not interchangeable. 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 provisions
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
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
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.
59. B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma
and Shiji do illustrate the principle that the
High Court may quash criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise
of its inherent power under Section 482 of
the Code and Section 320 does not limit or
affect the powers of the High Court
under Section 482. Can it be said that by
quashing criminal proceedings in
B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma
and Shiji this Court has compounded the
non-compoundable offences indirectly? We
do not think so. There does exist the
distinction between compounding of an
offence under Section 320 and quashing of
a criminal case by the High Court in
exercise of inherent power under Section
482. The two powers are distinct and
different although the ultimate
consequence may be the same viz.
acquittal of the accused or dismissal of
indictment."
10. Apart from narrating the interplay of Section 320
and Section 482 of the Code in the manner aforesaid, the
Court in Gian Singh case also described the extent of
power under Section 482 of the Code in quashing the
criminal proceedings in those cases where the parties had
settled the matter although the offences are not
compoundable. In the first instance it was emphasized
that the power under Section 482 of the Code is not to be
resorted to, if there is specific provision in the Code for
redressal of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should
be exercised very sparingly and should not be exercised
as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other
provision of the Code. The Court also highlighted that in
different situations, the inherent power may be exercised
in different ways to achieve its ultimate objective.
Formation of opinion by the High Court before it exercises
inherent power under Section 482 on either of the twin
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any
court, or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua
non.
11. As to under what circumstances the criminal
proceedings in a non- compoundable case be quashed
when there is a settlement between the parties, the Court
provided the following guidelines: (Gian Singh case, SCC
pp.340-41.
para 58)
"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal
proceeding having regard to the facts that
the dispute between the offender and the
victim has been settled although the
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 wrongdoing that seriously
endangers and threatens the well-being of
the society and it is not safe to leave the
crime-doer only because he 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 the
permission of the court. In respect of
serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity,
etc. or other offences of mental depravity
under IPC or offences of moral turpitude
under special statutes, like the Prevention
of Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in that
capacity, the settlement between the
offender and the victim can have no legal
sanction at all. However, certain offences
which overwhelmingly and predominantly
bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil,
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
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 the victim and the offender and
the 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 FIR if it is satisfied that on the
face of such settlement, there is hardly any
likelihood of the offender being convicted
and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and
ends of justice shall be defeated. The
above list is illustrative and not exhaustive.
Each case will depend on its own facts and
no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed."
12. Thereafter, the Court summed up the legal
position in the following words: (Gian Singh case, SCC
pp.342-43, para 61)
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion
can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or a 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 plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has
to be exercised in accord with the guidelines 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 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, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
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, 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 the
criminal proceedings if inits view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim, the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 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 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 the criminal case is put to
an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
The Court in Gian Singh case was categorical
that in respect of serious offences or othe roffences of
mental depravity or offence of merely dacoity under special
statute, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by Public Servant while working in that capacity.
The mere settlement between the parties would not be a
ground to quash the proceedings by the High Court and
inasmuch as settlement of such heinous crime cannot have
imprimatur of the Court."
5. Even in the case of Srinivasan Iyenger v.
Bimla Devi Agarwal reported in (2019) 4 SCC 456 at
paragraph Nos.8 to 14 it has been observed as under:
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
"8. During the hearing of these appeals, the learned
counsel for the appellants agreed to pay to the original
complainant a total sum of Rs 10,00,000 (Rupees Ten
lakh only) towards the full and final settlement of the
claim of the original complainant and it is agreed that, on
such payment, the claimant will not proceed with the
complaint any further and that the parties may be
permitted to compound the offences.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the original complainant has stated that the original
complainant is agreeable to accept a total sum of Rs
10,00,000 offered and that, on such payment, the
complainant has no objection if the offences against the
appellants are compounded and the criminal proceedings
initiated against them are quashed.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
original complainant has submitted that the appellants
may deposit a total sum of Rs 10,00,000 in the bank
account of the original complainant, the particulars of
which are already on record, and on doing so, the
appellants may be permitted to withdraw the amount of
Rs 3,75,000 plus interest if any, already deposited by
them.
11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respective parties and that now the parties
have settled the dispute amicably and that the dispute
between the parties seems to be having predominant
element of a civil dispute and the origin is predominantly
or overwhelmingly a civil dispute, we are of the opinion
that this is a fit case to exercise the power under Article
142 of the Constitution of India to meet the ends of
justice.
12. We are of the opinion that on payment of total sum
of Rs.10,00,000 by the appellants to the original
complainant, as agreed between the parties, the criminal
proceedings be quashed, considering the decisions of
this Court in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat
[Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641
: (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] and Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160
: (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] .
13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, we allow the parties to compound the offences,
even though the offences alleged are non-
compoundable, as the dispute between the parties
predominantly or overwhelmingly seems to be of a civil
nature and that the dispute is a private one and between
the two private parties. Accordingly, it is ordered
that on payment of a sum of Rs 10,00,000 by the
appellants to the original complainant to be
deposited in the bank account of the original
complainant within a period of two weeks, the
criminal proceedings being CR Case No. 40-C of
2014 pending in the Court of the learned CJM,
Tinsukia, stand quashed. On furnishing proof of
deposit of Rs 10,00,000, the Registry to return
the amount of Rs 3,75,000 along with interest, if
any, to the appellants herein, which the
appellants have deposited pursuant to the earlier
order of this Court.
14. The present appeals stand disposed of
accordingly in terms of the above."
6. Bearing in mind the above facts and
circumstances and on perusal of the charge sheet
material, though the offences leveled against the
petitioner-accused are punishable under Sections
366A, 376 of IPC r/w Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO
Act and Sections 9 and 11 of Prohibition of Child
Marriage Restraint Act, the said offences are non-
compoundable in nature. But as could be seen from
the records, the parties have compromised the
matter amicably and the respondent-complainant
has already attained the age of majority and she
submits that now they are leading the matrimonial
life and the petitioner-accused has accepted
respondent No.2 - victim as his wife. When a
family is going to be settled, it will be a boon to the
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
society. Therefore, in my opinion if the said
compromise is allowed by keeping in view the
above said decision endorsed, the parties can lead
a cordial life hereinafter.
7. Be that as it may. Even if the trial is held,
the complainant herself has filed a joint memo for
having amicably settled the dispute and she will not
support the case of the prosecution and the trial
held will be nothing but a futile exercise and waste
of judicial time. The alleged offences are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life and
the complainant and the accused are intending to
join their hands and compound the offence and no
bodily injury has also been caused to the victim. In
the case of Gian singh (quoted supra), it has been
observed that the High Court is having power under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to weigh the material on
record and take an appropriate decision in
accordance with law. Even subsequently also
Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the Child
Marriage Act has decided the same view depending
upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
When the parties have entered into amicable
settlement and have compromised,
then under such circumstances, I am of the
considered opinion that if the compromise is
accepted and the two families are going to be
settled happily, the said settlement can be
accepted. If the said settlement is not accepted, it is
going to create a big gap between them. Their
thoughts and ideas may be changed. Respondent
No.2 will become destitute and it will be burden to
the family to settle her life. By the time of
settlement all the problems are going to be
resolved.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
8. Taking into consideration the above said facts
and circumstance of the case, I am of the considered
opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the power under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and permit the parties to settle
their disputes amicably as entered into."
(Emphasis supplied)
In Crl.P.No.5922/2019 the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court holds as follows:
"This petition is filed challenging the criminal
proceedings in SC No.94/2018 initiated for offences
punishable under Sections 376, 323, 506 r/w Section 34
of IPC. Second respondent-complainant registered FIR
No.7/2018 in Bangarpet Police Station, KGF District, on
05.01.2018 alleging that first petitioner had married her
on 04.01.2018 and that his relatives took away her
husband on the following day from railway station.
Accordingly, she alleged commission of aforementioned
offences against four accused. Accused No.4 Pillappa
passed away whilst investigation was in progress. After
investigation, police have filed charge sheet.
2. During the course of hearing today,
learned advocates for the petitioners and second
respondent jointly submitted that parties have
reconciled matrimonial dispute and living happily.
The couple have also been blessed with a male
child. In the circumstances, they prayed that
criminal proceedings against the petitioners be
quashed.
3. Learned HCGP submitted that in view of the fact
that prosecutrix herself has come forward before this
Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings, this Court
may consider the prayer.
4. I have carefully considered rival submissions
and perused the records.
5. The complaint dated 05.01.2018 in substance
shows that first petitioner and second respondent were
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
married in Ganapathi Temple near Ramamandir. They
stayed in the house of one Shri Sathish on that night.
On the following day, first petitioner, his wife and her
parents had purchased tickets to travel to Kakinada in
Andhra Pradesh. In the railway station, accused Nos. 2
and 3 forcibly took away first petitioner and also assaulted
second respondent's parents. Accordingly, FIR has been
registered.
6. The joint affidavit of first petitioner and second
respondent reads as follows:
JOINT AFFIDAVIT
"We, GOWARDAN, S/O LATE SUBRAMANI, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE,
BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT and
PARTHIBAN, S/O SARAVANAN K.V, AGED ABOUT 19
YEARS R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGARPET
TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT and UDAYAKUMAR, S/O
MUNIRAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT
KARAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR
DISTRICT and AISHWARYA. N, W/O GOWARDAN,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE,
BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. Today at
Bengaluru do hereby state on solemn affirmation as
follows.
1. We are the petitioners No.1 to 3 and respondents
No.2 in the above petition, we are acquitted (sic
acquainted) with the facts of the case and hence we
are competent to swear to this affidavit.
2. We state that at the intervention of the elders
and well wishers and family members, the
petitioners and respondents have resolved their
dispute amicably and reached to a settlement, out of
court, which is culminated in this joint affidavit.
3. That the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are
married on 04/01/2018, out of their wedlock one
mail (sic male) child was born namely Niharika, and
happy married life till today, therefore, I have no
objection to quash the charge sheet.
4. The parties have entered in to this joint affidavit
on their own volition without any influence or
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
coercion and after understanding the contents of the
joint affidavit.
Wherefore, the parties herein respectfully pray
that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to
quash the charge sheet in the learned II Addl.
District and sessions judge Kolar, in SC.No.94/2018
for the offences punishable under section 376, 323,
506 r/w 34 IPC and 4, 8 POSCO Act 2012 in the
interest of justice and equity."
7. The parents of second respondent have also filed a
joint affidavit which reads as follows:
JOINT AFFIDAVIT
"We, Narendra Babu N, S/o late Natesh, aged
about 67 years, R/at.Karahalli village, Bangarpet
Taluk, Kolar District and Suryakumari W/o
NarendraBabu N, aged about 45 years,
R/at.Karahalli village, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District
today at Bangalore. Do hereby state on solemnly
affirmation as follows.
1. We are the parents of the respondent
No.2/Aishwarya N, we are the acquitted (sic
acquainted) with the facts of the case. And hence we
are competent to swear to this affidavit.
2. We state that at the intervention of the elders
and well-wishers and family members. The
petitioners and respondents have resolved their
dispute amicably and reached to a settlement, out of
court, which is culminated in this joint affidavit.
3. that the petitioner No.1 is my son-in-law and
respondent No.2 is my daughter are married on
04/01/2018, out of their wedlock one mail (sic male)
child was born namely Niharika and happy married
life till today, therefore I have no objection to quash
the charge sheet.
4. The parties have entered in to this joint affidavit
on their own volition without any influence or
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
coercion and after understanding the contents of the
joint affidavit.
Wherefore, the parents herein respectfully pray that
this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash
the charge sheet in the learned II Addl. District and
sessions judge Kolar, in SC.No.94/2018 for the
offences punishable under section 376, 323, 506 r/w
34 IPC and 4, 8 POSCO Act 2012 in the interest of
justice and equity."
8. Though aforesaid offences have been alleged
against petitioners, the subsequent developments
recorded in the affidavits show that parties have
resolved the matrimonial dispute amicably.
Petitioners, second respondent and her parents are
present before the Court. They are identified by
their respective advocates. The conspectus of facts
of this case shows that complaint has emanated out
of initial disagreement with regard to marriage.
Suffice to state that parties have admitted the
marriage of first petitioner and second respondent
and stated in the affidavit that they are happily
living with the child. More so, complainant, her
parents and first petitioner have resolved the
differences amicably. In the circumstances, no
useful purpose would be served in continuing the
criminal proceedings.
9. Accordingly, all proceedings in SC.No.94/2018
pending on the file of II Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Kolar, are quashed. The petition stands disposed
of."
(Emphasis supplied)
In Crl.P.No.3162/2018 the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, holds as follows:
"The petitioner has approached this court seeking
quashing of the Special CC No.194/2015 on the file of
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
Rural District, registered against the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and also
u/s.6, 8, 10 & 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offence Act [hereinafter referred to as "POCSO Act" for
short].
2. During the pendency of this petition, the
petitioner and the second respondent who is no other
than the mother of the victim girl and also the wife of
the petitioner have filed a compromise petition before
this court submitting that the matter has been
compromised between themselves. The parties have
also filed their detailed affidavit before this Court
seeking permission to compromise the matter and also
seeking quashing of this petition.
3. Before adverting to the contents of the
compromise petition entered into between the parties
and their statement in the affidavit, it is just and
necessary to have the brief factual matrix of this case:
The second respondent herein who is the wife of
the petitioner and no other than the mother of two
victim children i.e., the daughters of the petitioner and
the respondent No.2, has lodged an FIR before the
respondent No.1 police making serious allegations
against her husband stating that her husband has been
ill-treating and harassing sexually the twin daughters
who are aged about 5 ½ years. It is stated that since
2014 after their marriage, the complainant has found
some indifferent attitude in the conduct of her
daughters and therefore, she meticulously examined
and ascertained from them, then she came to know that
the petitioner had been sexually harassing the said
children by touching their private parts and also kissing
the children etc., Quoting various instances the wife
has filed such complaint and in fact after thorough
investigation, the police have submitted the charge
sheet before the competent court and the same has
been culminated in Special CC No.194/2015.
4. After the charge sheet being filed and for
the present, it appears, both the husband and wife have
also decided to separate themselves. They have also
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
filed Joint Petition for divorce in MC No.1697/2018
before the Family Court, Bengaluru.
5. In the above said facts and
circumstances, the second respondent has come
forward to compromise the matter with the
husband for the better interest of the children,
they have decided to live separately. Husband
has also specifically given up all his rights over
the children including the guardianship as well as
visitation rights and also he has undertaken to
provide a house as well as sufficient amount for
the future development of the children.
6. In fact, the petitioner has denied all the
allegations made against him.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner during
the course of these proceedings has also produced
certain additional documents i.e., the report of the
Assistant Professor, Department of Child and Psychiatry,
NIMHANS, Bengaluru. The documents produced before
the court disclose that during the course of
investigation, the Investigating Officer vide his letter
dated 26.10.2015 has called for the report from the
NIMHANS with regard to the examination of the children
earlier on 10.6.2014 and 21.6.2014 when children were
produced by the mother of the children for examination
of the children before the NIMHANS Hospital.
8. In response to the same on 29.10.2015, the
Assistant Professor, Department of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, NIMHANS, Bengaluru, has
reported that on assessment of the children, the doctor
found that both the children have normal developmental
milestones and did not have any obvious behavioral or
emotional problems. Further, during the assessment
using play therapy, the children have not voluntarily
reported about any alleged sexual abuse incidents by
their father.
9. Even the letter dated 27.7.2015 written by a
lady by name Meenakshi Yaragatti, Executive of SJPU,
which is the branch of Police, she also in fact examined
the children and she has reported that the children have
not made any allegations against their father.
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
10. Looking into the above said facts and
circumstances of the case, though serious and heinous
offence have been alleged against the petitioner, the
mis-conception on the part of the mother of the
children, under the above said doubtful circumstance, in
my opinion, it cannot be ruled out. Therefore, if the
compromise petition between the parties is beneficial
not only to the petitioner and the second respondent,
but also if it is more beneficial to the children, in such
an eventuality, for the better interest and benefit of the
children, the compromise petition can be accepted by
the court.
11. In this context, it is worth to refer some
rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision rendered
in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another
reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein the Apex
Court has held thus:-
"Power of High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or 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."
12. This Court in Criminal Petition No.3269/2017
disposed of on 12.12.2017 has elaborately discussed as
to under what circumstances, the court can exercise
power u/s.482 of Cr.P.C., to put an end to the dispute
between the parties. Particularly referring to POCSO
Act, this Court has considered the dispute between the
parties particularly when the offences are punishable
u/s.376 of IPC as well as under POCSO Act, this Court
has made an observation that the power conferred
u/s.482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the
power which lies in the court to compound the offence
u/s.320 of the Code. No doubt u/s.482 of the Code, the
High Court has pecuniary inherent power to quash the
criminal proceedings even in those cases, which are not
compoundable, where the parties have settled the
matter between themselves.
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
13. In another decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 between
Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and
another, this court has considered that the offence
though u/s.307 of IPC, falls within the category of
serious and heinous offence and generally treated as
crime against society, since power of quashing is taken
away, the court has to examine the facts and
circumstances of each case and on detailed meticulous
circumspection to be made by the court where the
particular case on fact is liable to be quashed on the
basis of the compromise entered into between the
parties, the court can exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction to quash such proceedings.
13. In another decision, which is reported in
(2018) 3 SCC 290 between Anitha Maria Dias Vs.
State of Maharashtra, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
has made an observation at para 7, quoting the
observations made at para Nos.29.5 and 29.6 in the
case of Narinder Singh, cited supra. The sum and
substance of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex
Court is that:
"29.5. While exercising its powers, the High
Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
criminal cases would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would
be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences u/s.307 of IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore,
are to be generally treated as crime against the society
and not against the individual alone. However, the High
Court would not rest its decision merely because there
is a mention of Section 307 of IPC is there for the sake
of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence,
which if proved, would lead to proving the charge
u/s.307 of IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the
High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained,
whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate
parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc., Medical
report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can
generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this
prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the
chances of conviction are remote and bleak."
In such circumstances, the court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention of such
serious offence in the FIR or in the charge sheet filed by
the Police. It would be open to the High Court to go by
the nature of allegations made whether such an
allegations on the face of record, can be taken as true
or false, whether there are any other circumstances
which shows that those allegations may be due to
misconception. Under such circumstances also, the
court can exercise power to quash the proceedings.
14. In the above said background, as per the
guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court, if the same are
applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is
a doubtful circumstance, whether such things have
happened actually in view of the doctors report as noted
above. On perusal of the charge sheet, it is the
document which is issued by the NIMHANS doctor, who
is having authentication with regard to the factual
aspects of this case. The respondent No.2 has also not
denied the aspect of taking the children to the NIMHANS
hospital for examination of the children by the said
doctor.
Under the above said facts and circumstances of
the case, it is clear that there may be due to some
strong dispute between the husband and wife, may be
due to mis-conception the allegations have been made,
but this is not a conclusive observation made, but based
on the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I
am of the opinion that the compromise between the
parties is beneficial not only to themselves, but also to
the small children, then such compromise can be
accepted, even though the allegations made against the
petitioner is serious and heinous and it will have some
impact on the society.
Now, let me go through the affidavits filed by the
parties i.e., both petitioner and respondent No.2. The
affidavits filed by them giving undertaking for the
benefit and welfare of the minor two children. The
husband has categorically admitted that he is paying an
amount of Rs.60,00,000/- by way of Demand Drafts to
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
respondent No.2 as full and final settlement. Out of
that, an amount of Rs.20 lakhs each to the daughters
which shall be deposited in any of the Nationalised Bank
by way of Fixed Deposit, till the children attain majority.
The petitioner has also accepted that respondent No.2
shall have the right to utilize the interest accrued on the
Fixed Deposit. However, an amount of Rs.40 lakhs shall
continue till the children attain the age of majority. The
petitioner state that his mother owned a Flat No.306,
Block-B, 3rd Floor of the apartment complex known as
DSR Greenfields Nadagondanahalli K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru. The petitioner further states that he and his
brother are the only legal heirs of their mother who
expired on 22.11.2016. He has stated that he will
execute the gift deed of the said property in the name
of his wife after getting the release deed from his
brother who has agreed to execute the same and
further he has agreed to handover all the original
documents of the said property at the time of execution
of the gift deed. Today before this court, the petitioner
has made payment of Rs.60 lakhs by way of 3 demand
draft Nos. (1) 549473; (2) 549472; and (3) 549470
dated 6.6.2018 of Federal Bank of Bangalore Vignana N
(1629) for Rs.20 lakhs each. Also, the petitioner has
handed over the keys of the house noted above. The
respondent No.2 who is present before the court
acknowledges the receipt of three Demand Drafts as
well as keys of the house. Further, the petitioner
undertakes that within a short span of time, he would
execute a registered gift deed. Further, the petitioner
has agreed that the second respondent shall continue as
guardian of the children and that he has no visitation
rights so far as the children are concerned. Apart from
the above, the affidavit filed by the parties clearly
discloses that the parties have resolved the entire
conflict between themselves and dispute also therein in
order to provide a new life to the petitioner as well as
the second respondent and to the children and to
facilitate them to have their future life to live happily, I
am of the considered opinion that as this is a very rarest
of rare case, the court has to record the compromise
between the parties."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17530
8. In the light of the preceding analysis, I deem it
appropriate to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition is disposed of;
(ii) The proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.310/2024 (Crime
No.22/2024), Devanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru
Rural District, pending on the file of the Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-III, Bengaluru
City, qua the petitioner, stands quashed;
iii) The order of the quashment be communicated to
the jail authorities by way of electronic mail,
forthwith, for enlargement/ release of the
petitioner; and
iv) It is made clear that the petitioner would run the
risk of revival of the impugned proceedings, in the
event the petitioner would leave the wife and the
child in the lurch.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
KG
