K.N. Phaneendra, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is present before Court. The Court also enquired her.

2. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has filed I.A. No. 3/2014 seeking amendment of the husband's name of respondent No. 2 as 'Umesh Kittur' instead of 'Basavaraj Kittur'. The said application is allowed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to amend the cause title as proposed in the application.

3. The learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner and respondent No. 2 have compromised the matter and they are living together after the incident. Though the respondent No. 2 has lodged a complaint against the petitioner - husband for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity). She does not want to prosecute her husband before the Court of law, as they have joined together and living happily along with their two children. In fact they have filed a compromise petition before this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C. for brevity), in which he has categorically stated that after filing of the case against the petitioner by respondent No. 2, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have compromised between themselves and they are living happily along with their children. The dispute between them in no more res integra. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 has no objection to quash the entire proceedings, pending before Sessions Court in S.C. No. 65/2013.

4. The brief allegations made against the petitioner are that, on 11.02.2013 at about 9.30 p.m. the accused/petitioner herein came to the house in an intoxicated manner and started abusing the respondent No. 2 (wife) herein on the ground that she has refused to pay some money to the petitioner. He caught hold her head and assaulted her with his hands and kicked her with his legs. When the mother of respondent No. 2 came to rescue respondent No. 2, he has threatened her with dire consequences of killing them. It was also alleged that the accused - petitioner has chased respondent No. 2 by holding the knife who went inside the bed room and locked from inside. The accused - petitioner went to kitchen and opened the gas cylinder and leaked out the gas and made attempts to lit fire in order to kill all the inmates in the house. On these allegations a complaint came to be lodged and police have registered a case in Crime No. 13/2013 and after due investigation a chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner herein. After committal proceedings, a sessions case has been registered in S.C. No. 65/2013 on the file of Prl. Sessions Judge, Dharwad. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments with regard to framing of charges has framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 307 of I.P.C. and set down the case for recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses. At this juncture, petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of entire proceedings before the Sessions Judge on the ground that the matter has been compromised.

5. The learned Counsel in order to persuade this Court has relied upon several rulings and argued that the High Court and Apex Court haves shown some latitude so far as the matrimonial disputes between the parties are concerned and exercised the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in order to enable the parties to live happily. It is, in my opinion, just and necessary to look into the said rulings in order to ascertain whether the circumstances are in existence in order to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. The Apex Court in a case reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 between Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, at paragraph 61 has