AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for respondent No.2 -Sri.Syed Abdul Saboor who has no objection to
pass appropriate orders in accordance with the compromise entered into between the parties.
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are present before the Court.
This petition is filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in S.C.No.133/2014 on the file of the V Additional District Judge at Mysore.
The charge sheet papers reveal that the complainant (second respondent) by name - Smt.Siddiqua Kausar has filed a complaint stating that, the
accused have been demanding dowry and other gold articles etc., from respondent No.2 and their family members. In this context, it is alleged that
on 31.5.2012, petitioner No.1 herein has threatened the second respondent with dire consequences of killing her, if she give any complaint to the
police. It is further stated that inspite of that, she has given police complaint. Therefore, petitioner No.1 enraged himself and attempted to kill her
by pouring kerosene on her and as he was not able to do that, he strangulated her neck with a dupatta and when she screamed for help, other
witnesses came and rescued her . On the basis of the above said complaint, the police have filed the charge sheet before the Court.
After the above said proceedings, it appears that on 4.4.2016 the parties have entered into compromise between themselves in
O.S.No.23/2012 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Mysore which was disposed of on 4.4.2016 by granting a decree of divorce.
In the said compromise document at paragraph No.15, the parties have agreed to withdraw or get the matter quashed pending in
S.C.No.133/2014 on the file of V Additional Sessions Judge at Mysore. In view of the above said compromise, it appears that the parties have
settled their dispute and they are living happily, though separately.
Though the offence under Section 307 of IPC is an offence against the society, but it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case, the Court can exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to enable the parties to live happily atleast in future. In this regard, it
is worth to mention a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in 2014(6) SCC 466 between NARINDER SINGH & ORS VS STATE OF
PUNJAB & ANR wherein the Apex Court has elaborately discussed that under what circumstances the Court can exercise the power under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., at paragraph Nos.22 and 23 which reads thus:-
Thus, we find that in certain circumstances, this Court has approved the quashing of proceedings under section 307,IPC whereas in some
other cases, it is held that as the offence is of serious nature such proceedings cannot be quashed. Though in each of the aforesaid cases the view
taken by this Court may be justified on its own facts, at the same time this Court owes an explanation as to why two different approaches are
adopted in various cases. The law declared by this Court in the form of judgments becomes binding precedent for the High Courts and the
subordinate courts, to follow under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Stare Decisis is the fundamental principle of judicial decision making
which requires ''certainty'' too in law so that in a given set of facts the course of action which law shall take is discernable and predictable. Unless
that is achieved, the very doctrine of stare decisis will lose its significance. The related objective of the doctrine of stare decisis is to put a curb on
the personal preferences and priors of individual Judges. In a way, it achieves equality of treatment as well, inasmuch as two different persons
faced with similar circumstances would be given identical treatment at the hands of law. It has, therefore, support from the human sense of justice
as well. The force of precedent in the law is heightened, in the words of Karl Llewellyn, by ""that curious, almost universal sense of justice which
urges that all men are to be treated alike in like circumstances"".
As there is a close relation between the equality and justice, it should be clearly discernible as to how the two prosecutions under Section 307
IPC are different in nature and therefore are given different treatment. With this ideal objective in mind, we are proceeding to discuss the subject at
length. It is for this reason we deem it appropriate to lay down some distinct, definite and clear guidelines which can be kept in mind by the High
Courts to take a view as to under what circumstances it should accept the settlement between the parties and quash the proceedings and under
what circumstances it should refrain from doing so. We make it clear that though there would be a general discussion in this behalf as well, the
matter is examined in the context of offences under Section 307 IPC.
Apart from the above, in another ruling of the Hon''ble Apex Court in its decision reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 between GIAN SINGH Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER has laid down the following guidelines under what circumstances the Court will permit the parties to
compound the offences and quash the proceedings:
-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 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 case 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 above 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 - If such question(s) are answered in the affirmative, High Court shall
be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
In view of the above said decisions, this Court has to examine whether this case also falls under the same category.
As could be seen from the records and relationship between the parties, it discloses that no damage has actually been caused to the body of the
complainant - CW-1 (second respondent herein). Further added to that, the relationship between the parties is that of husband and wife and they
have entered into compromise and it is stated that they are living happily, though separately after the compromise entered into between the parties.
Therefore, in my opinion, when the parties have squared up the dispute between themselves and no damage has been caused to either of the
parties, under the above said circumstances, it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the following:
i. Petition is allowed.
ii. Consequently, the proceedings pending before the V Additional Sessions Judge at Mysore in S.C.No.133/2014 against the petitioners and all
further proceedings therein are hereby quashed.