Karnataka High Court
Mr Alam Pasha vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 February, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K. N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL. P. NO.1008/2018
BETWEEN
1. MR ALAM PASHA
S/O AMEER SAHIB,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT # 674, 9TH A MAIN,
OLD SYNDICATE BANK ROAD,
IST STAGE, IST CROSS,
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038
2. MRS. SHABNAM
W/O ALAM PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT # 674, 9TH A MAIN, OLD SYNDICATE BANK
ROAD, IST STAGE, IST CROSS,
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MURTHY D NAIK., ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR,
J P NAGAR POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE-560078
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001.
2. SMT C M GOPI
W/O SRI G DEVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
2
R/AT NO.610, 11TH CROSS,
J.P NAGAR,3RD PHASE,BANGALORE-560078.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.RACHAIAH., HCGP FOR R1 AND
SRI. M.MADHVACHAR., ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P FILED IS U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO:
1) QUASH FIR NO.84/2013 DATED 31.01.2013
REGISTERED BY THE J.P.NAGAR POLICE STATION, FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 405, 415, 425, 120B, 506 R/W 34
OF IPC AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2
HEREIN, PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY,
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A.
2) QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 21.11.2013
FILED AGAINST PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2/ACCUSED
NOS.1 AND 2 FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION
418, 420, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE B AND WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS
C.C.NO.20331/2013 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE
CITY.
3) QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.20331/2013
ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE CITY,
FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 418, 420, 506 R/W 34 OF
IPC, VIDE ANNEXURE C AGAINST PETITIONERS NO.1
AND 2/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Sri M. Madhavachar, learned counsel files vakalath for the second respondent - complainant.
2. The first petitioner and the second respondent and their respective counsels, are present before the court. Heard the parties and their counsels.
3. Both the parties have filed a Joint Affidavit dated 7.2.2018 reporting compromise between themselves. The execution of the compromise petition by way of filing of Joint Affidavit is admitted by the parties. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the second respondent has no objection to quash the entire proceedings in connection with FIR No.84/2013 and consequential registration of Criminal Case No.20331/2013 on the file of the V Addl. CMM, Bengaluru City.
4. The factual aspects of this case discloses that the dispute is with regard to agreement of sale dated 20.10.2010 and subsequently, execution of the sale deed in favour of some other person etc., Now, the 4 matter has been compromised between the parties settling their dispute amicably.
5. In this regard, it is worth to mention here a decision rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein the Apex Court has held thus:-
"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."
On perusal of the above said offences, the dispute essentially arising out of civil dispute, differences between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 have been settled by themselves amicably. 5
6. Under the above said circumstances, when the parties have resolved their dispute between themselves without affecting the rights of the parties, in my opinion, the dispute between the parties can be set at rest by accepting the compromise filed by them. Therefore, the Petition requires to be allowed. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. The Joint Affidavit filed by the first petitioner and the second respondent is hereby accepted. Consequently, all further proceedings in CC No.20331/2013 (arising out of Crime No.84/2013 of Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station) pending on the file of the V Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under sections405, 415, 425, 120B, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*