Karnataka High Court
Sri. Munusamy vs The State By Its Sho on 4 July, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K. N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO.8329/2017
BETWEEN
1. SRI MUNUSAMY
(WRONGLY TYPED AS MUNISWAMY)
S/O LATE MUTTU,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/O NO 101, OWNERS COURT
MAINA RESIDENCY, KASAVANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 035
2. SRI GOPI
S/O LATE ANNAMALAI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/ NO 15, PRESENTLY
MANIKYA MODALIAR STREET
PAPARPATTI, DIST: DHARMAPURI
STATE TAMIL NADU - 600 001
3. SRI RAMACHANDRAN
S/O SINGARVELU
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/O NO. 23A
VANNIYAR TIRUR
POST : PAPPARPATTI
TALUK : PENNAGARAM
DIST: DHARMAPURI
STATE TAMIL NADU - 600 001
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR SANGOLLI, ADV.)
2
AND
1. THE STATE BY ITS SHO
BELANDUR POLICE STATION
BELANDURU, REP BY S P P
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. KUM SUNITHA
D/O TANGAVELU
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/O NO 101, OWNERS COURT
MAINA RESIDENCY
KASAVANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 035 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN ON
THE FILE OF THE I ACMM, BENGALURU IN CRIME
NO.115/2017 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 67 OF THE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, SECTION 292A, 511,
507 AND 384 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS ALONG WITH IA NO.1/2017 FOR STAY, THIS
DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
On the previous date of hearing Respondent No.2 was present and the parties on both sides had filed a joint affidavit reporting Compromise with regard to the case in Crime No.115/207 registered by the respondent- Police for the offence punishable under sections 67 of 3 the Information Technology Act ( for short, I.T. Act') and Sections 292(A), 511, 507 & 384 of IPC. The parties have compromised the matter and filed a joint affidavit before this court. Today, though Respondent No.2 is not present, but her sister-Smt. Anitha is present before the court and she informs that, her sister has executed a joint affidavit on the previous date of hearing and today, her sister is unable to come to the court, and therefore, it appears the 2nd respondent has no objection to accept the compromise.
2. The offences alleged are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life.
3. In the above circumstances and in order to facilitate the parties to live happily with each other in future, the compromise/joint affidavit is required to be accepted.
4. At this stage, it is worth to note here a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has given certain 4 guidelines with regard to quashing of the proceedings whenever the parties have entered into compromise. The relevant portion of the said decision reads thus:-
"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
5
"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 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..."
5. The factual aspects of this case also falls within the categories of the guidelines given in the above said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court . 6
6. The facts of the case in brief are that, petitioner No.1 is no other than the husband of the sister of the 2nd respondent. They are close relatives to each other. It is alleged that some unknown person was calling to the mobile phone of the 2nd respondent stating that, he was talking from Chennai and he has stated that, he has taken some video graph and the photographs of the 2nd respondent and her proposed lover, and he threatened her that, he would release those video graph and photographs to the website and in that regard he demanded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. After due investigation, it was found that the *petitioners *were doing the said acts. Therefore, the investigation has been proceeding in that line. Now the *petitioners and the 2nd respondent have compounded the offences. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings as they are close relatives to each other. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the joint affidavit filed by the parties is hereby accepted. All further investigation in *Corrected vide Chamber order dated 21.07.2018.7
connection with Crime No.115/2017 for the offence punishable under section 67 of I.T. Act and Sections 292-A, 511, 507 and 384 of IPC registered against the petitioner and now pending on the file of the 1st respondent- Police is hereby quashed so far as the *petitioners are concerned.
In view of disposal of this case, the application-IA No.1/2017 filed for stay, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR* *Corrected vide Chamber order dated 21.07.2018.