Karnataka High Court
Jaffer Sadiq Alias Sadiq Alias Ravana vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 September, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:40204
CRL.P No. 4948 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4948 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. JAFFER SADIQ @ SADIQ @ RAVANA
S/O SYED BABU,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.501, 3RD MAIN,
2ND CROSS, AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE,
NEAR KAVERINAGAR,
BSK II STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 070
2. VISHAL GOWDA @ VISHAL
S/O PUTTARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT 3RD CROSS,
3RD MAIN, NEAR JAIN TEMPLE,
THYAGARAJANAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 025
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH 3. TIPPU SULTAN @ THIPPU
COURT OF S/O AKMAL PASHA,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT NO.311, 3RD MAIN,
NEAR AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE,
NEAR KAVERINAGAR, BSK II STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 070
4. DEEPAK GOWDA @ DEEPU @ AGHORI
S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT 7TH CROSS, ANNAPOORNA BAKERY,
NEAR VENKATESHWARA BOOK STORE,
KAVERINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 070
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:40204
CRL.P No. 4948 of 2024
5. NAVEEN
S/O PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT NO.513, 13TH CROSS,
4TH MAIN, BHAVANINAGAR,
BSK II STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 070
(ALL ARE IN CUSTODY)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A.N. RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BANASHANKARI POLICE,
REP. BY THE STATE OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. R. OMKUMAR
S/O LATE M. RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
NO.1991, 9TH MAIN,
BSK II STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 070
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.599/2021 ON THE FILE OF LXII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-
63) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 395, 364(A), 506, 397, 326 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:40204
CRL.P No. 4948 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 5 are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in S.C.No.599/2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 395, 364(A), 506, 397 and 326 of the IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.A.N.Radhakrishna, appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader Smt. Sowmya R., appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows:
The complainant is a practicing advocate. A complaint is registered on 10.02.2021, which becomes a crime in Crime No.34/2021 alleging that on 09.02.2021 at 3.30 a.m., when the complainant in his car was traveling at Banashankari II Stage, at that point in time, accused Nos.1 to 5 stopped the car of the complainant, the complainant was then pulled out of the car with an intention to kidnap. Accused No.1 then began to drive the car and the other accused made the complainant sit at the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:40204 CRL.P No. 4948 of 2024 rare seat and closed his mouth. Accused No.3 is said to have flashed a gun and caused injuries on the face, nose and shoulder of the complainant and accused Nos.4 and 5 assault the complainant and demand ransom. The ransom demanded was paid and the amount Rs.50,000/- was drawn at three different ATMs. When the complainant was let out, he returns and registers the crime. The petitioners were immediately taken into custody on 15.02.2021 and have been in custody since then, as application seeking bail have been repeatedly turned down by the concerned Courts. When things stood thus, the parents of the accused is said to have met the complainant and his parents and have explored the possibilities of settlement and in fact arrived at a settlement between the parties.
4. The issue now would be whether in the teeth of the offences being the ones punishable under Section 364A of the IPC, can this Court record the compromise and close the issue.
5. The complainant's counsel has appeared in-person and has accepted that since the petitioners have been in prison for the last three years, they have undergone imprisonment at -5- NC: 2024:KHC:40204 CRL.P No. 4948 of 2024 least partially for the crime they have committed. Therefore, the counsel would accept that the matter can be closed by recording the compromise.
6. In identical circumstances, the Apex Court and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court have accepted the settlements in the case where offences alleged where the ones punishable under Section 364A or 307 of the IPC and has closed the proceedings against those accused. I deem it appropriate to notice the judgment of 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, 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:-
(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 -6- NC: 2024:KHC:40204 CRL.P No. 4948 of 2024 any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or 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 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."
7. 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.
-7-NC: 2024:KHC:40204 CRL.P No. 4948 of 2024
8. It is also germane to notice the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench 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 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, reads as follows:
"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 -8- NC: 2024:KHC:40204 CRL.P No. 4948 of 2024 sheet material or allegations made in the complaint were to remain unrebutted, it would not 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 mode 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.3) 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 application filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners under Section 359 of BNSS, 2023, seeking compounding of the offence, which reads as under:
"APPLICAION UNDER SECTION 359 OF BNSS 2023 The Petitioners 1 to 5 (Accused No.1 to 5) and the Respondent No.2 Sri.R.Om Kumar beg to state as follows:-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:40204 CRL.P No. 4948 of 2024
1. The petitioners have filed the present Criminal Petition, calling in question the proceedings in S.C.No.599/2021 on the file of the Learned Addl.
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-63) for offences punishable under sections 395, 364(A), 506, 397, 326 IPC.
2. The petitioners are Accused Nos.1 to 5. They are in custody from 15.2.2021.
3. The petitioners and the respondent No.2 submit that, they have at the instance of elders, well wishers, common friends and at the instance Petitioners parents and on their pursuation, they have come to a settlement to put a stop for the pendency of the above proceedings.
4. The petitioners Accused No. 1 to 5 submit that they undertake that they would not repeat the same mistake/Act, same or similar offences in future. They further undertake that they would not cause threat and indulge in causing threat in any manner to the respondent No.2 in person or to his family in any manner, in future. Petitioners repent for and regret the incident giving rise to the complaint.
5. As stated supra, they are in custody from 15.2.20121, They have now understood/ reformed themselves as what is wrong and what is right. Petitioners undertake and assure that they would not contact physically or through phone or by other means nor would they ever try to meet or see or intimidate R.Omkumar or anybody in his family in pretext of the above case or in any other manner and if such incident were to happen leave granted to compound the offence may be withdrawn unconditionally.
6. The petitioners submit that all though the offences alleged are non compoundable, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shaik Ahmed Vs. State of Telangana, rendered on 28.6.2021, they may be permitted or accept their composition and disposed of the petition and in pursuance of the composition, proceedings No.599/2021, may be put an end.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40204 CRL.P No. 4948 of 2024 WHEREFORE, the petitioners and the respondent No.2 humbly pray Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the Application and impugned proceedings in S.C. No.599/2021 pending on the file of the Learned Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-63) may be quashed and in consequences of the same, the petitioners who are in custody may be released, in the interest of justice."
9. In the light of the judgments (supra) rendered as also the fact that the petitioners have been in prison for the last three years and the complainant coming forward to close the proceedings and the complainant being an practicing advocate, who would be aware of the consequences of closure, I deem it appropriate to accept the application seeking compounding of the offences and close the proceedings against the petitioners with a rider that if they are indulging in identical acts after they are released, the impugned proceedings may result in impugned proceedings getting revive.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is disposed;
ii) The proceedings in S.C.No.599/2021 on the file of the learned LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-63), qua the petitioners, stand quashed;
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40204 CRL.P No. 4948 of 2024
iii) The order of the quashment be communicated to the jail Authorities by way of electronic mail, forthwith, for enlargement/ release of the petitioners; and
iv) It is made clear that if the petitioners indulging in identical acts after they are released may have the effect of restoration of the subject proceedings.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8