Karnataka High Court
Sri.Iranna Kudagi S/O Basavraj, vs The State Of Karnataka, on 8 March, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100421/2017
BETWEEN
1. SRI.IRANNA KUDAGI S/O BASAVRAJ,
AGE: 22 YEARS,OCC: STUDENT,
R/A: MADHURA ESTATE,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOURISHANKAR H. MOT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY PSI, KESWAPUR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED THROUGH SPP OFFICE,
HIGHI COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
2. GAGAN SHETTY S/O JAYRAM,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: BHAVANI NAGAR, HUBBALLI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. SUBHASH BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSION JUDGE, AT HUBBALLI IN SESSION CASE NO. 76 OF
2015 AROSE FROM KESHWAPUR POLICE STATION IN THEIR
CRIME NO. 53 OF 2014 UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 364-A
2
READ WITH 149 OF IPC, AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED
NO. 4.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri. Subhash Baddi, the learned Advocate files vakalath for the 2nd respondent-Gagan Shetty.
2. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent along with their respective counsels are present before the court. They filed a joint compromise petition under Section 320(8) of Cr.PC in connection with S.C. No.76/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 364-A r/w 149 of IPC.
3. It is stated in the joint petition that, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have been friends to each other and at the intervention of the well-wishers, they arrived at a settlement of the dispute between them without any influence or coercion and the complainant decided not to prosecute the above said criminal case against only this petitioner. Respondent 3 No.2 has agreed to give up all his claims in respect of the petitioner herein. The dispute is personal as they are friends to each other, as such, they do not want to continue the dispute. Therefore, they requested the court for quashing the proceedings in SC No.76/2015 only against the petitioner herein.
4. Respondent No.2 who is present before the court submits that he has not stated in the complaint about the presence of the petitioner or any of the role played by him so as to attract the ingredient of Section 364(A) of IPC and he has only mentioned about three persons who have assaulted him and taken him away in demand of Rs.30,000/- and he has not stated anything about the petitioner herein. Even he submits before the court that only the police after the investigation told him that this petitioner is also involved in the incident. Therefore, a case has been registered against the petitioner, but it is stated that, at no point of time, the present petitioner has demanded any amount from 4 respondent No.2 nor his involvement in the incident in question is shown. He further submits before the court that the petitioner is the friend of respondent No.2 and they were known to each other since four years. Therefore, in the above circumstances, they requested for quashing of the above criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
5. On perusal of the charge sheet papers also, the complainant only mentioned the presence of three persons on 17.03.2014 at 3.20 p.m. and demanded an amount of Rs.30,000/- from respondent No.2 and those three persons have actually taken the 2nd respondent in demand of the said money. There is no allegation whatsoever against the petitioner and his involvement in the said crime is stated. Even the statement of the witnesses have also does not show the involvement of this petitioner in the said criminal act. It appears on the voluntary statements of the other accused persons, 5 the name of this petitioner has been involved in the case.
6. In the above said facts and circumstances, as the matter is between the friends and they have compounded the offences and compromised the matter, there is no legal impediment to quash the said proceedings.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is worth to note hear a decision reported in 2012(10) SCC 303 between Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, wherein it is observed that under Section 482 of Cr.PC, the High Court can quash the criminal cases even in respect of non-compoundable offences. But, before exercising any such inherent powers, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact. The Hon'ble Apex Court also categorized some of the cases in which the parties can compound the offences even if they are non-compoundable under Section 320 6 of Cr.PC, before the High Court due to the power vested with the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically observed in the said decision thus:
"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 while working in their capacity as 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. - But, criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantingly Civil flavour stand on a different footing- "if the 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 to secure ends of justice, it is appropriate the criminal case is put to an end - If such question(s) 7 are answered in the affirmative, High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings".
8. In the case on hand, it is seen from the records that the allegations made against the present petitioner is altogether different from the allegations made against other accused persons in the said case, as noted above.
9. In view of the above said circumstances, it is the dispute between the friends and when the complainant has stated that he never implicated the petitioner at any point of time and he states that even after the initiation of case, they remained as friends, as such, it is the dispute between the friends and they have settled the matter, therefore, there is no impediment to quash the said proceedings. It is to be noted that, quashing of the proceedings is not automatic in all the cases and quashing is only on the basis of the factual aspects which are running against 8 the accused person/s has to be taken into consideration.
10. In the facts and circumstances of this particular case, when there is no material is available against the petitioner herein or any complaint is lodged by the 2nd respondent against him, in my opinion, the proceedings are required to be quashed, so far as the present petitioner is concerned. Hence, the compromise petition filed by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is accepted and all further proceedings in S.C. No.76/2015 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi, particularly against this petitioner is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*