Anand Byrareddy, J

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

2. The present petition is filed by the husband of the second respondent.

3. The facts leading up to this case are as follows:

It is alleged by the Shahapur Police, Belgaum that the petitioner had committed offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’ for brevity) and a case was registered in Crime No.61/2011 by the jurisdictional Police Station and accordingly a complaint was registered before the JMFC III Court, Belgaum. The petitioner was promptly arrested and produced before the Court on 25.5.2011 and was remanded to judicial custody. This was in the backdrop of one Ravi, son of Suryakant Shete of Belgaum having lodged a complaint that his sister, namely, Usha, the second respondent was given in marriage to the petitioner about six years prior to the complaint and it was a love marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent and the elders in the respective families had agreed to the marriage. A male child was born to the couple about four and half years prior to the complaint. It is alleged that the petitioner thereafter started ill-treating the second respondent on account of a discord having developed between them and he was alleged to be flirting with other women and therefore, there was rancour between the petitioner and the second respondent.

It was alleged that on 25.5.2011, a person had intimated the complainant that the petitioner and the second respondent were quarrelling with each other and that it appeared to be a serious altercation. In response to the call, the complainant, his mother and one Raghavendra Raikar went to the house of the petitioner and they noticed that the petitioner had put a crepe bandage around the neck of the second respondent and was trying to strangulate her. The complainant and others had intervened and inquired as to what transpired. At this, the second respondent had complained that the petitioner was seeking to be friend other women and therefore, there was an argument between them.

It transpires that the second respondent was admitted to the KLE Hospital, Belgaum. It is in this background that the petitioner was arrested and taken into custody. But as on date, it transpires that the petitioner and the second respondent have reconciled and are now living peacefully without any problems between them and therefore, are before this Court seeking the proceedings pending before the trial Court be quashed. As their attempts to have the matter compounded have proved futile.

4. The learned Government Pleader would raise a serious objection as to the maintainability of the present petition and he would submit that admittedly, the petitioner is accused of offences, which are non compoundable and therefore, the question of quashing the proceedings, on the footing that subsequent to the complaint, the petitioner and the second respondent have reconciled and therefore the entire proceedings ought to be quashed, would make a mockery of the justice system and as the law has been set into motion, it would have to run its course and the petitioner or respondent No.2 seeking to initiate proceedings and thereafter to withdraw the same at their whim and fancy would render the entire system a mockery and therefore, would oppose the petition and would submit that the same be rejected at the threshold.

5. The learned counsel for petitioner, on the other hand, would submit that in identical circumstances, the Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu and others Vs. Radhika and Another, AIR 2012 SC 499, has expounded as to the efficacy of the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.PC’, for brevity) to quash the proceedings in the ends of justice. In this regard, the learned counsel would draw attention, to the facts of that cas