Karnataka High Court
Pavankumar K P vs State Of Karnataka on 15 June, 2021
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
1
Crl.P.No.2863/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2863 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
PAVANKUMAR K.P.
S/O. LATE PUTTAMADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
TALUK PLANNING OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYAT, MALAVALLI,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
R/O. KAGGALIPURA VILLAGE,
B.G.PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 417. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR.K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BELAKAVADI POLICE STATION,
BELAKAVADI,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 417.
(REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
BANGALORE - 560001)
2. SMT. YASHASHWINI N.M.
W/O. MAHESH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
PDO, KAGGALIPURA GRAMAPANCHAYAT,
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 417. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1
SMT. HEMAVATHI K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
2
Crl.P.No.2863/2021
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1538/2019
(CR.NO.24/2019) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 354(A), 354(B), 354(D), 353, 323, 506, 509 OF IPC
REGISTERED BY THE BELAKAVADI POLICE STATION,
MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT, NOW WHICH IS PENDING ON
THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALAVALLI,
MANDYA DISTRICT AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP and also learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner herein has prayed to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1538/2019 arising out of Cr.No.24/2019 registered by the Belakavadi Police Station, Malavalli, Mandya District for the offences punishable under Section 354(A), 354(B), 354(D), 353, 323, 506, 509 of IPC which is pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.DN) & JMFC Court, Malavalli, Mandya District.
3Crl.P.No.2863/2021
3. Brief facts of the case that would be necessary for the disposal of this petition are:
The second respondent-complainant on 26.02.2019 has lodged a complaint before the Belakavadi Police Station, Malavalli, Mandya District, alleging that she is working as the Panchayath Development Officer in Kaggalipura Gram Panchayath for the last three years and the Malavalli Taluk Planning Officer had been misbehaving with her and harassing her by making frequent phone calls to her. On 25.02.2019 when she was on duty, he came to her office at about 2:00 pm and abused her using filthy language and also pulled her dress and assaulted her on cheek.
He also forcibly took her phone and threatened her that he will dismiss her from services. At that point of time one Sri.Guruprasad Swamy, Sri.Shankar, Bill Collector and Sri.Lokesh, DEO came there and rescued the complainant. Based on these allegations complaint was lodged and the police registered the FIR in 4 Crl.P.No.2863/2021 Cr.No.24/2019 against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. Subsequently the police after investigation have filed the chargesheet against the petitioner and case is now pending in C.C.No.1538/2019.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant have jointly submitted that the dispute between the parties is amicably settled and the complainant wants to unconditionally withdraw all allegations made by her against the petitioner. They also submit that they have filed a joint application and affidavit. Paragraph 2, 3 and 4 of the joint affidavit reads as follows:
2. We both at the intervention of the elders, well-wishers and also considering the future of us, we have settled our differences and disputes amicably and once for all respondent No.2 unconditionally withdrawn all the allegations made against the petitioner in Crime No.24/2019 (C.C.No.1538/2019) for the offence punishable under sections 354(A), 354(B), 354(D), 353, 323, 506, 509 of IPC registered by the Belakavadi Police Station, Malavalli, Mandya District now which is 5 Crl.P.No.2863/2021 pending before Prl.Civil Judge & JMFC, Malavalli, Mandya District.
3. Both have amicably compromised/settled dispute with each other and both the parties agreed that we will maintain cordial relation with each other, in future and will not quarrel with each other and will live peacefully in future and as such the complainant/respondent No.2 does not want to pursue this criminal case further.
4. Hence, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant permission to Compound the said offence and be pleased to dispose of the case as compounded and proceeding may kindly be quashed.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 at paragraph 61 has observed as follows:
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power 6 Crl.P.No.2863/2021 viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal 7 Crl.P.No.2863/2021 case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
6. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has held that while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court is required to consider whether the alleged crime is against the society or against individual alone. In the case on hand, the alleged crime committed is against the individual and not against the society. 8 Crl.P.No.2863/2021
7. The offences alleged in the present case are not heinous in nature. Since the parties have already settled the dispute and differences between themselves, continuation of further proceedings in this criminal case would not only amount to abuse of process of law, but it will also be a futile exercise.
8. Under these circumstances, in order to secure the ends of justice, I am of the considered view that it is just and necessary to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1538/2019 which is now pending before the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.DN) & JMFC Court, Malavalli, Mandya District. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed.
ii. entire proceedings in C.C.No.1538/2019 arising out of Cr.No.24/2019 registered by Belakavadi Police Station for the offences punishable under 9 Crl.P.No.2863/2021 Sections 354(A), 354(B), 354(D), 353, 323, 506, 509 of IPC now pending before the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.DN) & JMFC Court, Malavalli, Mandya District is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RKA