Shri Roopsunder vs State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CRICUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY or JANUAE"i?;"2t§3[j'0Vé  -

BEFORE_w__

THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUsTzcE-,AI+2'g'ALz 1S:A¢+.§Rg§.:T-of

CRIMINAL PET1T1oi§*~No.8'1oG/;2'i3o9_;""  

BETWEEN:

1.

Shri. Roopsunder s/op, 1.\I'2§_ikV  V
Age: 38 Years, Occupationz' .in.su'r'anCei_-Agent
R/o. I-I.No..33OL')_/JA./f_'1, shn R"e~m1_ka Niwas
Shivagiri,     

Hubli, D'1'é1L5_"Dh&fWad:f-._V  _   '

. Dr.   W  o»..Vv.:'Roofuisiirtder N aik

Ageig_38_ YevarVs;"'QCQu'pa'tion2' Associate Professor
R/o. House   10, G.O.Quarters
KIMS Campus', _ 'V . ' 
Hubii, Diu'st;_VDharWad"'
  "  Petitioners

 »{I:3'y--» S.Raichur, Adv.)
j State oftiatrérzataka through

  Officer, Mahila Police Station
.. ff ~HV1ib1.i'.

 Respondent

%  tgsgy Sri. ¥;.H.Gotkhindi, HCGP)

,,.,......("""'"""""



This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.N'o.
704/2009 in the court of the JMFC II, Hubli.  T

This Criminal Petition is coming on for .

this day, the Court made the following:

The present petition u/ s   

petitioner Nos. 1 and 2  respe.ctiVeily,i[accused

Nos. 1 85 2 in CC.No. /O9i'l(Clriineip'ivl\lo. 12/V09 fir Mahila

Police Station, Hubli) :ioffenc'e_'sfa/secs. 498A,

323, 504      

2. Statedliin"'br"i'eAf »-theulfacts leading to the present
petitigon are as 
 Vi(.a}-{The petitioner No.2 Smt. Janaki, the
of petitioner No.1 Roopsunder
. hilaik, filed a complaint before the police
of l\/lahila P.S., Hubli, against her
husband (Petitioner No.1 herein)

alleging that he committed offences

u/secs. 498A, 324, 504 and 506 of
r--...{""*---



(b) After completion of jini%e's<t.iga.tio_;n,::p'"the 

DJ

IPC. On the

complaint crime No. 12/09 came to

registered against him by the  

Police Hubli.

said police submitted  

against the first petit.io'ner~a:ccus.eVdV 

before the iearned  Coiflubli
for the offences  323, 504
and 506 of iPc1.* 'JMFC, by
his _"or_de1~_... «'dtd:   took

co_g7nizai'ice_ 4"of:V_ the 'saicl""offence and

"'*iSSU.eda':Qprocess agmnst the present

-.p'etiti'c.1'i'er'i _ "accused returnable by

'x24/7/2oé9.'«T"

  the pendencey of the
i  investigaitiiioin the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2

 dispute amicably settled and

it ' joint petition 11/ s 13B of the Hindu

 . Marriage Act seeking dissolution of their

marriage by consent of each other.

Therefore, both the petitioners have filed

the present joint petition seeking

,.~._§'°'-'---~'-

basis of the said_____



quashing of further proceedings in the_, 

said case before the Trial Court.

3. Heard the arguments of Sri. Sathis S.   ~

learned counsel appearing for bo.th~th'e  1._ ii

and 2.} Perused the averrnents  

petitioner No.2 against peititioner i\1'o.,_15 "ihiisiband, " V

the order cit: 10/7,./.2O()9Ar.----passed'. byi"the.-V2 learned
Magistrate taking   of:  -said offences
against the   the joint petition

filed by   1:: of the Hindu Marriage

Act seiekingii their marriage by consent of

each othieri .

  éatish S.Raichur, the Eearned counsei for the

 reiiance on the decision of the Hon'b1e

Suiiremiei Court in the case of, B.S.Joshi and Others vs

it i«,:&*tat_¢  Haryana and Another reported in ILR 2003

 'R-':Ai.iiR"i2£'785, strongiy contends that, since the dispute

"between husband and wife has been settled amicably

f 



and they have fiied the petition 11/3 13 B of Hindu

Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of their marriagfeby

consent of each other, no purpose would be sveryeldi  "

continuing the proceedings 'oefo;*e"t--he 

therefore all further proceedings   case. deser:%e~.tio'w._

be quashed. V    
5. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 ar'e_pr.e_sent.' ._'I_'hey together

submit that they have'-gl:Ct_ th_eii:j 'd.ispute'rsettIed amicably

and therefore, they ha.Ve~i.'i1::edi  138 of Hindu

Marria,ge"iAct.:9V5jn   165'/'2oo9 before the 11 Addi.

Civil Judge (Sr.ViDn}~,._iiH--ub»Ei..~--'seeking dissolution of their

marriage  _con.s'ent. of each other and the same is

....r__p¢riiding'*.ar1d therefore, further proceedings in the said

i..cr'irriirla}'~.,_casVe_Lgaending before the learned Magistrate

may be qtiaéshed.



6. Honb'1e Supreme Court has observed   "

Nos. 4,6,8,9 of its judgement inv~th'e--above _si'iiL1 céise'.was--.«
under:

Para 4. The High COi.J1'1"i13.S,  
Judgment, dismissed :thel"peti_tiorii fiied  the
appellants seekiiag'  FIR for in
View of the  th'eiv.ioffef1ces under
Section?»     are non-
  powers under
s¢¢;1pn.V%:%;8';2:___g'f  be invoked to
by  provision of Section
siizoor 'tingiejqdev;{fm~ its View, the High Court
_hasixre1i"erre:c1'V._to'-einziirelied upon the decisions of
..«§¥.ti}1is Coi;1:*fi.,___.i.if1o» STATE OF I-IARYANA AND
 o"'fHi::2s Vs BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS (1992
o ittsi:;§p1§(1):'_1.»scc 335) MADI-IU LMAYE vs THE
  MAHARASHTRA [(1977) 4 sec 551]
 afigi "SURENDERA NATH MOHANTY AND

 ~  ANOTHER vs STATE OF ORISSA [AIR 1999 so
'=.f21s1}

q....._,5"'-\.....-o



..  powers. V "

Para 6. In PEPSI FOOD LTD. AND ANOTHER
vs SPECIAL JUDECIAL MAGESTRATE Al_\l.i_)

OTHERS [(1993) 5 sec 749], this C01.1I"t'4"'»'.i»'_:i:"£«l?i_Ll'--i.V

reference to Bhajan Lal's case observed__th'atijthei ;. 

guidelines laid therein as to wherQ,..tf1€. Ciourt it

will exercise jurisdiction unclei'«Section_il4i82V of: in

the Code could not be infiexibie er ieytihg ;igiseti:i'itii'

formulate to be fo'Eilowed   Courts.
Exercise of such power  the
facts and circurnstancelsl  casevybut with
the sole purpose _e.'EOl'vi'»tL1l3L1Se of the
process of_*a.r1y Cdurtiiorv  to" secure the

ends of ju:stil_ce.,l'~¢  'is tfifellll settled that these

piowersi"Ii.a.Ve7noul,irni_ts, _' Of course, where there
isimore p'o_WeAr~,._iit'--beco~rnes necessary to exercise

utmost care-_'a'n,d"c'aution while invoking such

  1°'3.?"='c  is thus, clear that Madhu Lirnaye's
 4 sec 551], does not lay down

  general proposition limiting power of

quash-ing the criminal proceedings or FIR or

A likcomplaint as vested in Section 482 of the Code

"or extra ordinary power under Article 226 of the

,..r.c-----~



Constitution of India. We are, therefore, of the

View that if for the purpose of securing the

of justice, quashing of FIR becomes   

Section 320 would not be a bar to  C'

of power of quashing. V---"'It*---.is,hovxisjeiferg  

different matter depending» facts 

circumstances of eachiease Whether to'e:~revrcise

or not such a power.

Para 9. The  ha__s.:a]so reiied [AIR
1999 so 2181] upgn  in case of
Surender_E:\iath  "{siiL1pra) for the

propos.ition1';j'i'i_t.:f;ati:«offence declared to be non-

co~11~1p.ounda?3,1e 'eannot"be--"compounded at all
eVen_ 'with.theiperrnvission of the Court. That is

ofi'C\ouirse'V..soif _ offences which can be

_::_oInpo'unded'-- areiiiinentioned in Section 320.

 offe'n'ces~which are not mentioned there

  in  be permitted to be compounded. In

 case, the appellants were convicted

A  by.-thveltrial Court for offence under Section 307.

 High Court altered the conviction of the

if 'i"=._appe1lants and convicted them for offence

"under Section 326 and imposed sentence of six

months. The trial Court had sentenced the

,,.......$".""'Nv--'"'u..



appellants for a period of five years R1. 

application for compounding was, hov§(eV_ieri,\_

dismissed by the High Court.  

holding that the offence for wh'ie:hvjV'_=thei  it

appeliants had been convicted wiiee,-his 

compoundable and, theref;o.re,;'_"it~'icouid  

permitted to be com:)oundeid.V_but  i

that the parties had'i"t'e»s"e»tt1ed their: dispute
outside the Court,__ the,rs'e1iit_enee_wasi 'reduced to
the period already 'unde_r,§;.o}ne'§':.Vit,iiis»,however, to
be borne in mind  case the
appe11ar_itisi}haVd  of the
offen-fies " V  if   fiapipirovached the Court
  if FIR under the

oircum staneesi above .. stated.

 A' 7. above observation of Hon'b1e Supreme
   E am of the opinion that though the
of IPC is not compoundable, this court,
;_1n def its inherent powers u/S 482 Cr.P.C. can

if  the further proceedings before the Trial Court in

g--..S"'\'-..»



10

View of the special and peculiar circumstances of the

case. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The present petition fileti ,u-/eii48§i.i,c–f§13.ic_e

hereby allowed. A11 furthiezfih pre’eeed1ngeV:°n;[ccINe.

704/ 2009 pending on the Court,
Hubli, pursuant to / 2006, taking
cognizance of the 0ffen-ceei 504, 506 IPC
against th e_ it hereby quashed.

Sd/-7
JUDGE

Vmb, ,