Karnataka High Court
Smt Muniyamma vs State By Mulbagal on 12 June, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K. N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.RP. NO.755/2015
BETWEEN
SMT MUNIYAMMA
W/O CHENGALARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
SIDDNAHALLI VILLAGE
MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT 563131 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. R. NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE BY MULBAGAL
POLICE, KOLAR DIST-563131
2. SHEKAR BABU
S/O LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT BEVAHALLI VILLAGE
PADMAGHATTA POST
MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DIST.
3. SMT. MANGALAGOWRAMMA
W/O NANDEESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT MARENAHALLI, BAGALUR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU
4. SMT. VANAJAKSHI
W/O CHENGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
2
NO.14-157, BOYA STREET
PALAMANER, MARKET YARD
CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 408
5. DAKSHAYANI
W/O BHEEMA RAO PATIL
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT MARENAHALLI, BAGALUR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU
6. PANCHAKSHARI
W/O MAHADEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT 140,BEVAHALLI VILLAGE
MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DIST.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. R. V. ANAND, ADV. FOR R-2 TO R-6)
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION PASSED AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED
28.2.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. C.J. AND J.M.F.C.,
MULBAGAL IN C.C.NO.460/2003 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER PASSED AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED
7.7.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., KOLAR IN
CRL.A.NO.30/2013.
THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY
ALONG WITH IA NO.2 AND IA NO.3/2018, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 & 6 are present before the Court. They have filed an application- IA.2/2018 under Section 320(4)(b) r/w. Section 482 of Cr.PC. seeking permission of the court to compound the 3 offences under Sections 465 and 471 of IPC. They have also filed an application-IA.3/2018 under Section 320(8) of Cr.PC., wherein the complainant and the petitioners have filed their joint affidavits reporting settlement between the parties. It is stated in the application that, the petitioner herein was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for each of the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 of IPC by the Principal judge and JMFC, Mulbagal in C.C. No.No.460/2003 vide judgment and order dated 29.02.2013 and the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was called in question in Criminal Appeal No.30/2013 on the file of Principal Judge at Kolar and the same was dismissed on 07.07.2015.
2. The deceased N.B. Lingaiah was the complainant. The said Lingaiah died on 01.03.2006. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are the Legal Representatives of deceased N.B. Lingaiah. This court has already allowed the said application and the Legal Representatives of the original complainant are already on record. It is submitted that the parties have compromised the matter as per the advice of the well-wishers, friends and relatives. The 4 petitioner and Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are the residents of the same village. The learned counsel further submitted at the time of arguments that, all the parties are of the same village and in order to live peacefully herein afterwards, they have compromised the matter. Though the offences named above are non-compoundable in nature, but they are virtually personal in nature, as the deceased complainant has lodged a complainant making allegations against the petitioners with regard to forgery of some of the documents pertaining to his family property. The offences are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life.
3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a reported in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], has laid down certain guiding principles as to under what circumstances, the Court can record compromise between the parties and quash the proceedings even in respect of the non-compoundable offences. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as under:
5
"Held -Power of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from power of a criminal court of compounding offences under S. 320 - Cases where power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised where the parties have settled their dispute, held, depends on facts and circumstances of each case - Before exercise of inherent quashment power under S.482, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact. .............
Thus, held, heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants, cannot be quashed even though victim or victim's family and offender have settled the dispute - Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx "But criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing - Offences arising from commercial financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or 6 personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute, High Court may quash criminal proceedings - High Court, in such cases, must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between parties and whether to secure ends of justice, it is appropriate the criminal case it put to an end. If such question(s) are answered in the affirmative, High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings..."
4. In my opinion, in this particular case also the respondent and the petitioners are residents of the same village and they are known to each other and they have compromised the matter and to provide them a happy future life, it is just and necessary to record the compromise. The factual aspects of this case also falls within the categories of the such cases, wherein the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court could be followed. Accordingly, the following order is passed:-
ORDER The petition is allowed. The compromise petition and the affidavits filed by way of IA No. 7 2/2018 and IA No.3/2018 by the parties are hereby accepted. Consequently, the sentence passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal in C.C. No.460/2003 and which is affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kolar in Crl.Appeal No.30/2013 is hereby set aside. Consequently, exercising the powers under Section 320(8) of Cr.PC., the petitioner/accused is hereby set free and acquitted of the charges levelled against her for the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 of IPC, if she is not required in any other case.
If the fine amount is already deposited, the same shall be confiscated to the State as litigation expenses.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*