AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J. - Shri. M. Shivaprakash enters appearance for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
It transpires that the first petitioner is married to Shalini, the daughter of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. It further transpires that she had given birth to a child and thereafter committed suicide.
It was alleged that the petitioners were guilty of having treated Shalini with such cruelty that she was driven to commit suicide and a case was filed for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC", for brevity.). Further, they were also accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B, read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
In the meanwhile, the first petitioner had filed a case under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, in G & W.C.No.87/2013, against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and at the intervention of the parties, they have arrived at a settlement, where the first petitioner has agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.25.00 lakh in the name of his child, ''Sarniksha'' and it is also agreed between the parties that the child''s custody will remain with respondent Nos.2 and 3 and that the first petitioner would have visiting rights.
In view of this compromise petition and in order to remove all bad blood between the respondents and the petitioners, they wanted the criminal case also to be settled. However, since the offences alleged are serious in nature and are not capable of being compounded, the petitioners are before this Court seeking that the proceedings be quashed.
The learned Government Pleader however, would point out that apparently reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, in seeking that the criminal proceedings be quashed.
It is specifically brought to the attention of this Court that the offence involved is punishable under Section 306 IPC and other serious offences. Where death is involved, it would not be those class of cases which could be quashed in such circumstances, where parties seek to amicably settle issues between themselves and therefore, the said petition is not maintainable.
However, keeping the spirit of the order of the Supreme Court in view, and having regard to the allegations made herein, wherein the deceased had died immediately after child birth, and if a child was born, it cannot be readily assumed that the deceased was being treated with inhuman cruelty preceding such child birth and at the same time that she can also bear the child of the perpetrator of such cruelty. Therefore if she had committed suicide, it is doubtful that it was on account of the cruelty that was meted out to her by the petitioners and notwithstanding the apprehension against cases of such nature being quashed, since this is a border line case and in view of the respondents 2 and 3 having reconciled with the father of the child of the deceased, being provided access to the child and petitioner No. 1 also having taken care to provide for the maintenance and up-keep of the child, it would be a fit case where the proceedings could be quashed.
Accordingly, the proceedings pending in case in S.C.No.455/2013 on the file of 45th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, are quashed.