Karnataka High Court
Mr T A Satish Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2014
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4055 /2012
C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3426/2012
C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.705/2014
C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.706/2014
BETWEEN :
1. MR T.A. SATISH BABU,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O LATE MR .ASHWATHNARAYANA SHETTY,
2. MR T .A.MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE MR.ASHWATHNARAYANA SHETTY,
3. MRS .LAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O MR .T. A. SATISH BABU,
THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT
2ND CROSS, 2ND BLOCK,
KUVEMPUNAGAR,
TUMKURU. ... PETITIONERS
IN CRL.P. NO.4055 /2012
(BY SRI SHASHIKIRAN FOR LEX NEXUS, ADVS.,)
BETWEEN:
MR.T.A.RAJASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI ASHWATHNARAYANA SHETTY,
-2-
ADVOCATE,
R/AT #U-50, 5/1, 6TH CROSS, PIPELINE,
MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560 003.
...PETITIONER
IN CRL.P. NO.3426/2012
(BY SRI SATHYANARAYANA CHALKE.S,
FOR LEX NEXUS, ADVS.,)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
NEW EXTENSION POLICE STATION,
THILAK PARK CIRCLE,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2. MR .DINESH KUMAR,
AGED: MAJOR,
FATHERS' NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONER,
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE/STATION
HOUSE OFFICER,
NEW EXTENSION POLICE STATION,
THILAK PARK CIRCLE,
TUMKUR DISTRICT
3. MR .ANIL KUMAR .J,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O MR .JAYARAM,
OWNER, M/S A3 COLLECTIONS,
GK. ROAD, K .R.EXTN.,
TUMKUR. ... COMMON
RESPONDENTS IN
4055/2012 & 3426/2012
(BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI M.SHASHIDHARA, ADV., FOR R2,
SRI VISHNUMURTHY, ADV., FOR R3)
-3-
CRL.P NO.4055/2012 AND CRL.P NO.3426/2012 ARE
FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AND QUASH
THE FIR IN CR. NO.151/2012 OF NEW EXTENSION P.S.,
TUMKUR, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 394, 465,
324, 504, 506, 323, 420 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND U/S 9 AND
18 OF THE CHITS FUNDS ACT, 2004 AND SEC.76 OF THE
CHIT FUNDS ACT, 1982.
CRL.P NO.706/2014
BETWEEN:
T.A.SATHISH BABU,
AGED 56 YEARS,
S/O LATE ASWATHNARAYANA SHETTY,
II CROSS, II BLOCK,
KUVEMPU NAGAR,
TUMKUR - 572 101.
.. PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADV.,)
AND:
KARUNAKARAN .J,
AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O JAYARAM,
VRUSHABHA NILAYA,
KASTURBA ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR,
TUMKUR - 572 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VISHNUMURTHY, ADV.,)
CRL.P.NO.706/2014 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 407 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO WITHDRAW C.C.NO.1216/2013 FROM
THE COURT OF III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMKUR
AND THE SAME MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT OF
THE C.M.M., COURT, BANGALORE.
-4-
CRL.P NO.705/2014
BETWEEN:
T.A.SATHISH BABU,
AGED 56 YEARS,
S/O LATE ASWATHNARAYANA SHETTY,
II CROSS, II BLOCK,
KUVEMPU NAGAR,
TUMKUR - 572 101.
.. PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADV.,)
AND :
ANIL KUMAR
AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O JAYARAM,
VRUSHABHA NILAYA,
KASTURBA ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR,
TUMKUR - 572 101. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VISHNUMURTHY, ADV.,)
CRL.P.NO.705/2014 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 407 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO WITHDRAW C.C.NO.1117/2013 FROM
THE COURT OF III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMKUR
AND THE SAME MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT OF
THE C.M.M., COURT, BANGALORE.
THESE CRL.Ps COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The common petitioners and contesting respondents in these matters are present before the court. However, one of the -5- respondent, who is only proforma respondent, who is involved in the investigation of the dispute between the parties, namely Dinesh Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police is not before the Court. The parties and their respective counsel would submit that since he is proforma party, he is not involved in the process of settlement arrived at between the parties.
2. Admittedly, the dispute between parties is with reference to financial transaction, wherein there appears to be certain dues by the petitioners to contesting respondents. When this matter came up before this Court for orders on an application filed in IA.1/2013 and 2/2013 for vacating interim order in the first two matters and IA.1/2014 in other two matters, with the intervention of counsel for both parties the parties who are present before the Court have amicably settled the dispute arising between them, which is subject matter of this proceeding i.e., the proceeding emanating from Crime No.151/2012 of New Extension Police Station, Tumkur, wherein petitioners are shown as accused and the contesting respondents as complainants, which is with reference to offences punishable under Sections 394, 465, 324, 504, 506, -6- 323, 420 r/w 34 of IPC, under Section 76 of Chit Fund Act, 1982 and Sections 9 and 12 of Money Lenders Act, 2004.
3. In this proceeding, the settlement that is arrived at between the parties is placed in the form of joint memo filed by both the parties, which is signed by petitioner No.1 in Crl.P.No.4055/2013 and petitioner in Crl.P.3426/2012, namely T.A.Sathish Babu and Rajashekar. So far as T.A.Manjunatha and Laksmi, who are petitioner Nos.2 and 3 respectively in Crl.P.No.4055/2012 are concerned, they are represented by T.A.Sathish Babu, petitioner No.1 in Crl.P.4055/2012, who is husband of Lakshmi and elder brother of Manjunath. Regarding their personal appearance, Counsel for petitioners has filed an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C., seeking exemption, which is taken on record and they are exempted from personal appearance. Though petitioners 2 and 3 in Crl.P.4055/2012 are represented by petitioner No.1- T.A.Sathish Babu, Sri.Ravishankar, learned counsel for petitioners would submit that he got instructions from both of them to the effect that they have authorized petitioner No.1 and -7- counsel to enter in to settlement with the contesting respondents. Said submission is placed on record.
4. In these petitions, though a joint memo is filed settling the dispute between the parties, since offences alleged against accused being non compoundable in nature, in normal circumstance, the settlement arrived at between the parties cannot be entertained. However, in the light of judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Gian Singh -vs- State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it is held by the Apex Court that, if dispute is with reference to financial matters and matrimonial matters and if it is not with reference to heinous crime like rape, murder, theft dacoity etc., it is well within the discretion of High Court to quash the proceeding in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the instant case, admittedly, the dispute between the parties is with reference to financial transaction and though other offences are included, it is incidental to the financial dispute between the parties. In that view of the matter, following the ruling of the Apex Court in the aforesaid matter and in exercise of inherent power conferred on this Court under Section 482 -8- Cr.P.C., the settlement arrived at between the parties and filed in to the Court in the form of joint memo is taken on record and pursuant to said joint memo, the dispute between the parties is held to be settled between themselves amicably.
5. Accordingly, proceeding initiated against accused for the alleged offences in Crime No.151/2012 with New Extension Police, Tumkur, within the jurisdiction of JMFC, Tumkur and other two related criminal cases with reference to offence punishable under Negotiable Instruments Act in CC.1216/2013 and 1117/2013 on the file of III Addl.JMFC, Tumkur, are quashed.
Since, criminal petitions are disposed of, I.As filed in these petitions seeking vacating stay do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd/-