Bhimappa vs State of Karnataka and Others

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—That on 9.1.2015, on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties to the proceedings have compounded the offences, this Court has directed the Advocates to keep their parties present before this Court i.e., victim-girl as well as the petitioner herein if possible their parents. Victim-girl as well as the petitioner are present before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make the victim-girl as second respondent in this case. The learned counsel carried out the amendment.

Sri Chandrakanth Koujalagi has filed Vakalath for the second respondent before the Court and identified her, the same is accepted. Both the parties who are present i.e., to say the accused in CC No. 101/2012 on the file of the JMFC, Basavanabagewadi, is present along with his counsel. The victim-girl by name Smt. Reshma present before the Court. Both of them have filed their affidavits stating that they have compounded the offences in C.C. No. 101/2012 registered against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 363 of I.P.C. Therefore, both the parties have sought for quashing of the above said proceedings.

The offence under Section 363 of I.P.C. is a non-compoundable offence. Therefore, the parties have approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings.

Brief factual matrix of the case is:

The mother of the victim-girl by name Saipanabi lodged a complaint stating that her daughter Reshma aged about 15 years was residing along with other children with the complainant and her husband. It is alleged that the petitioner herein who is also the resident of the same village i.e., Mannur has eloped the victim-girl along with him. In this background, there was a complaint lodged and the police at the initial stages, registered the case for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 143, 147, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C. The said case was registered against the petitioner herein and his relatives by name Mallawwa Harijan, Malakappa Harijan, Nijawwa Siddappa Harijan, Bharathi Malkappa Harijan, Mahadevi Maralappa Harijan, Yallavva Harijan, Yallappa Chalavadi Harijan, Chandappa Harijan, Maralappa Harijan, Shanthavva Madakapa Harijan, Shankrewwa Chandappa Harijan and Lakshmibai Harijan but subsequently, at the time of filing of charge sheet on the basis of the statement made by the witnesses, charge sheet was filed only against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 363 of I.P.C. 6. On looking into the above said factual matrix, the real victim is the Reshma, daughter of the complainant. Though it is stated that she was aged 15 years as on the date of the commission of the offences by the petitioner, respondent No. 2-Reshma who appeared before this Court filed affidavit stating that she was major even at the time of alleged incident and she voluntarily went along with the petitioner as they were in deep love with each other. It is also submitted that both of them have married to each other in a temple and they are blessed with two children. To substantiate their contention, birth certificate of their two children have been produced before this Court (Xerox copies) issued by the competent authorities i.e., Registrar of Births and Deaths, Bambolim Goa. It is stated that both the petitioner and the second respondent have been residing as husband and wife and by doing coolie work they are seeking their livelihood. They contended that proceedings pending before the Court is hampering their life and therefore, they prayed for quashing of the same.

In the affidavit filed in support of their contention, they have categorically stated that the dispute between them is only matrimonial dispute and after the marriage between themselves, petitioner and the second respondent compounded all the offences. They are residing happily with each other along with their two children. Therefore, there is no legal impediment for this Court to quash the proceedings. The real victim-Smt. Reshma appeared before the Court and on examination by the Court she categorically stated that she voluntarily went along with the petitioner and as such no offence under Section 363 of I.P.C. was committed by the petitioner and they are happily married to each other. But the said marriage was not with the consent of their parents, therefore, they could not bring the parents before the Court. In view of the identification of the petitioner and the second respondent by their counsels and also in view of the affidavit filed and the photographs produced before the Court along with the birth certificates of the children, in my opinion, are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioner and the second respondent have amicably settled their dispute. The offence under Section 363 of I.P.C. is also not severely punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Though it is not compoundable offence, but it is not serious offence to be dealt with and at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that it is an offence which has got any societal impact. Therefore, this Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing of the proceedings.

It is worth to note here a decision of the Apex Court reported in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , wherein the Apex Court has put some guidelines under what circumstances the Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., when the offences are non-compoundable in nature.

"It is stated that 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 while working in their capacity as public servants, cannot be quashed even though victim or victim''s family and offender have settled the dispute. Such 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 is put to an end."

Basing on the above said principles and applying the same to the facts of the case, it is not disputed that though earlier it was a love affair between the petitioner and the second respondent, subsequently, after their marriage it has become matrimonial dispute between themselves. When the parties have compounded themselves and residing far away from the Court''s jurisdiction, having married each other, begot two children and living happily, it is not necessary that criminal proceeding shall continue against them. Even if the criminal case is continued it becomes futile attempt on the part of the Court because victim-girl herself will not be available to the prosecution to substantiate the case of the prosecution. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the entire proceedings pending on the file of JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi in C.C. No. 101/2012 deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

The petition is allowed. Parties are permitted to compound the offences exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and the entire proceedings which are pending in C.C. No. 101/2012 on the file of the JMFC, Basvana Bagewadi, are hereby quashed.