Karnataka High Court
Pavan Kumar Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 29 June, 2022
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
CRL.P No. 3760 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3760 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. PAVAN KUMAR REDDY @ PAVAN C.,
S/O CHANDRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT GOVINDPURA
JADGENHALLI POST
HOSKOTE TQ
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
2. ANAND K.G.,
S/O JITTAPPAA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT KACHARAKARANAHALLI
NADAVATHI POST
HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
Digitally
signed by 3. MANJUBHARGAV @ MANJUNATH
PADMAVATHI S/O N.SRINIVAS
BK
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
Location:
High Court of R/AT NO.185, P BLOCK
Karnataka TUNGA COMPLEX
KSRP QUARTERS
KORAMANGALA - 560 034
BENGALURU CITY.
4. PRASHANTH G.,
S/O GOPI KRISHNA M.,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT PALANAJOGIHALLI
-2-
CRL.P No. 3760 of 2022
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
5. SASHI
S/O RAMESH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT NO 399, 11TH CROSS
MUNEKOLLALA
MARATHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 037.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.R.C. MANOHAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
MADIWALA POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGLAURU - 560 001.
2. PREETHA K.,
W/O GITHIN RAJAN
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT SY.NO.14, K.NO.403/2
8TH CROSS. DODDANEKKUNDI
MARATHALLI
BENGALURU NORTH - 560 037.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI NAGENDRA A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-3-
CRL.P No. 3760 of 2022
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
IN S.C.NO.206/2019 (C.C.NO.75/2017) (CR.NO.2156/2015)
REGISTERED BY MADIWALA POLICE, BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 342, 364A, 397, 450, 120B R/W 149 OF
IPC IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILES OF HON'BLE LXVIII
ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR REPORTING
SETTLEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in S.C.No.206/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 364A, 397, 450, 120B r/w Section 149 of the IPC.
2. During the pendency of the petition, the parties to the lis have arrived at a settlement and have moved this Court to record such settlement and terminate the proceedings qua the petitioners.
3. The crime springs from the complaint registered by the second respondent-complainant. The crux of the complaint lies in these paragraphs:
" ... ... ... ...
Till late evening he didn't return home and he was not receiving calls. At 5.10 I got a call from my husband and -4- CRL.P No. 3760 of 2022 he was crying that Pavan Kumar Reddy and four people have kidnapped him and they are asking for Rs.5 lakh (five lakhs) release him. They need the cheque and the company ATM card and asked me to give it.
After 10 minuted 2 people came to my house one of them I recognise as Anand residing at sokya road. They came inside the house and ask for the cheque and the ATM card, for which I objected and said until they bring my husband home I will not give the card and the cheque. Once I said the same they took out a knife and threaten to kill me and my son if don't give it.
Once they start threatening me I gave them my 10 signed cheque bearing number 1000283 to 1000292 and the ATM card along with the pin. They also threaten me to close the company and leave the city other wise to face dare consequences. Also told me not to call the police or inform any one if I do so my husband will not reach home.
My husband reached home at 11 pm, he said that he was taken in Pavan Kumar Reddy car number KA21 M 7222, which was driven by Prashanth and he was taken inside a nursery where he was brutally hit by Pavan Kumar Reddy and other 4 people. They have forcefully made him to consume alcohol. They have withdrawn Rs.40000/- from SBI ATM at Munekola at 8 pm and later on they have used my ATM card in M/s.Manjunatha bar for Rs.315/-, and later that night they have withdrawn Rs.30000/- from SBI ATM.
Pavan Kumar Reddy owns a HR consultancy M/s.SLV Man Power Solutions he has contracted with M/s.Myntra.com and was supplying staff while my husband was working their.
With My husband's previous experience in the company we also got the contact with M/s.Mynthra. This is the reason why Pavan along with Anand, Manjunath, Prasanth, Sasi have threatened to kill me my husband and my son if we run the consultancy any more.
My husband told me that they have purchased a stamp paper from HSR, and they will come home today to get the sales deal signed.
-5- CRL.P No. 3760 of 2022They are threatening us to close the company which we have started which is our only lively hood.
I request your good self to take necessary action to protect me and my family from these people."
The allegation was that the complainant and her husband had started a consultancy of their own and that was directed to be stopped by the accused.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that except Section 364A of the IPC, all other offences could be permitted to be settled, as this is against the Society and is punishable with imprisonment for ten years.
5. To this submission learned counsel Sri.M.R.C.Manohar takes this Court through the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of SHAIK AHMED V. STATE OF TELANGANA rendered on 28.06.2021 wherein conviction and sentence under Section 364A of the IPC was challenged and the Apex Court holds as follows:
"12. We may now look into section 364A to find out as to what ingredients the Section itself contemplate for the offence. When we paraphrase Section 364A following is deciphered:--6- CRL.P No. 3760 of 2022
(i) "Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction"
(ii) "and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt,
(iii) or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter- governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any actor to pay a ransom"
(iv) "shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."
13. The first essential condition as incorporated in Section 364A is "whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction". The second condition begins with conjunction "and". The second condition has also two parts, i.e., (a) threatens to cause death or hurt to such person or (b) by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt. Either part of above condition, if fulfilled, shall fulfill the second condition for offence. The third condition begins with the word "or", i.e., or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter- governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom. Third condition begins with the word "or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign state to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom". Section 364A contains a heading "kidnapping for -7- CRL.P No. 3760 of 2022 ransom, etc." The kidnapping by a person to demand ransom is fully covered by Section 364A.
14. We have noticed that after the first condition the second condition is joined by conjunction "and", thus, whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person."
The ingredients as depicted in the judgment of the Apex Court is, whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction.
Therefore, the Apex Court has held that the kidnapping should be there at the outset and ransom should be demanded on such kidnapping. The complaint, so extracted, hereinabove would not depict such circumstance of kidnapping and demanding a ransom.
6. A squabble between the petitioners, respondent No.2 and her husband with regard to running a consultancy service appears to be the crux of the lis as is found in the complaint.
It is also germane to notice the judgment rendered by the Co-
ordinate judgment of this Court in the case of ROLLY CARIAPPA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER -
CRL.P.NO.2666/2019 disposed on 23.04.2019 wherein -8- CRL.P No. 3760 of 2022 accepting the settlement in an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC - attempt to murder, which is also an offence against the State and punishable with imprisonment for more than 10 years, the proceedings against the petitioner therein were terminated.
"7. In the light of above dicta of Hon'ble Apex Court the facts obtained in each case will have to be evaluated independently namely, this Court would not rest its decision merely on the ground that there is a mention of Section 307 of IPC in the FIR or in the charge sheet or contention is raised by the learned Prosecutor. If the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not to be found in the complaint or from the charge sheet material or in other words, if the uncontroverted charge sheet material would not lead to conviction of accused for said offence and even in such circumstances prosecution cannot be heard to contend that on account of Section 307 IPC having been invoked proceedings should not be quashed.
8. In this background, when allegations made in the complaint as well as charge sheet material on hand is perused it would only indicate that petitioner herein is alleged to have used his fist to assault on the face of deceased informant and he has also smashed informant's head to the teepoy, which was located in the room where petitioner and deceased informant was sitting. Thus, by no stretch of imagination ingredients of Section 307 of IPC would be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. Even if accepted that charge sheet material or allegations made in the complaint were to remain unrebutted, it would not -9- CRL.P No. 3760 of 2022 lead to conviction of accused for the alleged offence under Section 307 IPC.
9. Hence, keeping afroestated principles in mind and also statement made by the complainant and the fact that informant having expired his daughter having submitted that out of her own free will without any force, threat or coercion she has affixed her signature to the joint memo, this Court in order to ascertain the intention of informant's daughter to withdraw allegations made by her father against petitioner requested Smt. Vijaya, learned Member of this Bar who was present before Court to interact with 2nd respondent as to her willingness to withdraw the complaint lodged by her deceased father and as suggested, Smt. Vijaya learned Member of the Bar interacted with the daughter of the complainant i.e., second respondent, who is cited as a witness by the prosecution (C.W.5) and having been informed that 2nd respondent having expressed her willingness voluntarily to withdraw the complaint lodged by her father particularly in the background of entire matrimonial dispute with petitioner having been resolved, this Court is of the view that there is no impediment to accept the said joint memo."
Therefore, in the teeth of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it is necessary to notice the joint affidavit filed by the parties to the lis, which reads as under:
".... .... .... ....
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 3760 of 2022
6. We submit that, the monetary transactions have been amicably settled between the 1st Petitioner and CW2. The Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 are the friends of Petitioner No.1 and they have absolutely no role to play in the monetary transaction between the 1st Petitioner and cW2/Victim.
7. We submit thatafter due deliberations and advises with well-wishers, relatives, friends, the 2nd Respondent and CW2/Victim have decided not to further prosecute the case. Further we have decided to terminate the proceedings that have been made against each-others for our individual/personal peaceful and happy life to be led in future.
8. We submit that, the 2nd Respondent & CW 2 are well educated and are gainfully employed. The 2nd Respondent is major even during the report made to the 1st Respondent police. The Respondent No.2 and CW2/Victim have no compulsion, harassment, from any directions or corner to close the case once for all.
9. It is submitted that, the Complaint and the Charge-sheet materials do not constitute the offence of kidnap for ransom. The transactions between the parties are civil in nature.
10. We submit that, this Joint Affidavit, is being filed on our own accord and not at the behest of any persons, coercion, threat or any other extraordinary interest in seeking to close the case once in for all. We have settled our claims, disputes or other issues ourselves outside the Court and we have decided to lead our life happily and independently.
11. We submit that, the Respondent No.2 and CW2/Victim, have no objection for quashing the entire
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 3760 of 2022proceedings pending on the files of Hon'ble LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH69), in S.C.No.206/2019 (C.C.No.75/2017) (Cr.No.2156/2015) registered by Madiwala Police, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 364-A, 397, 450, 120-B r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and acquit the Petitioners in the above said case.
12. We submit that, hereinafter we do not have any grievance and objection against each other or any claim between us or any other persons. We both have family members, relatives etc., and they have also agreed not to indulge in filing further, cases claims etc., against each-others in any circumstances.
13. If this application is not allowed, we will be put to great hardship, injury and mental agony and on the other hand no prejudice will be caused to the other side by allowing the same."
7. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court and that of this Court concerning Sections 364A and 307 of the IPC and in view of the joint affidavit filed by the parties to the lis, I deem it appropriate to accept the joint affidavit of settlement of the dispute between the parties and to terminate the proceedings qua the petitioners.
8. For the afore-said reasons, the following:
(i) Criminal Petition is disposed.
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 3760 of 2022(ii) Impugned proceedings in S.C.No.206/2019 pending before the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru stand quashed qua the petitioners.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKP