AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, Advocate, takes notice of the petition on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and files vakalath, and the same is taken on record. Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for Respondent No. 1.
Having regard to the submission that the matrimonial dispute between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent has been amicably settled and as per the terms of the agreement, the 2nd respondent does not wish to pursue the prosecution launched against the petitioners initiated on the basis of the report lodged by her before the jurisdictional police, the matter was heard on merits.
The petitioners have sought for quashing the prosecution launched against them in C.C. No. 435/2013 on the file of the III Additional C.M.M., Bangalore.
The 1st petitioner married the 2nd respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 07.06.2004. Though the couple lived together for some time, differences arose between them and their relationship got strained on 26.01.2009, as a result, several proceedings between them were commenced both before the Civil Court and also Criminal Court. A writ petition was filed before this Court in Writ Petition No. 24659/2012 against the order dated 10.07.2012 passed in G & WC No. 229/2011 on the file of the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. During the pendency of the said writ petition, it appears the parties settled their disputes and filed a joint memo before the court in the writ petition setting-out the terms of agreement between them. As per the terms of the agreement, Respondent No. 2 expressed her desire not to continue the prosecution launched against these petitioners, which had been initiated on the basis of the report lodged by her before the jurisdictional police alleging the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and other offences. Acting on the said joint memo and pursuant to their settlement, it appears the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent has been dissolved by a decree of divorce. The other disputes pending between them have also been either withdrawn or got dismissed. A copy of the order dated 01.04.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 24659/2012 is also produced. Perusal of the said order would clearly indicate that the matrimonial dispute between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent has been amicably settled between them and their marital relationship has come to an end since the marriage between them has been ordered to be dissolved by a decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Bangalore. Perusal of the charge sheet papers in the present case would clearly indicate that the matrimonial dispute between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent was the cause for the 2nd respondent filing a report before the jurisdictional police attracting the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506, 504 and 323 of IPC.
In view of the fact that the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution. It is brought to the notice of this court that, when a similar prayer was made before the learned Magistrate on behalf of the 2nd respondent, who has been shown as CW. 1, the learned Magistrate declined to close the prosecution on the ground that the Investigating Officer has already filed the charge sheet and the offences are non-compoundable offences, as such, on the submission made by CW. 1, the prosecution cannot be closed. Thus, from the above, it is further clear that the 2nd respondent, pursuant to the agreement entered into between her and the 1st petitioner, had sought for closure of the prosecution before the trial court. However, in view of the fact that the court of the Magistrate has no inherent power nor it could close the prosecution initiated for non-compoundable offences, the learned Magistrate has rightly declined to grant the said prayer. However, having regard to the fact that the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, I am of the opinion that continuance of the prosecution would not only result in waste of precious public time of the court, but also cause hardship and embarrassment to the parties. In this view of the matter, the prosecution now pending against the petitioners deserves to be quashed. In the result, the petition is allowed. The prosecution launched against the petitioners in C.C. No. 435/2013 on the file of the III Additional C.M.M., Bangalore, is hereby quashed.