Karnataka High Court
Sri. Manjunatha vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2021
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1512 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
Sri. Manjunatha
S/o Lata N.M. Kotturappa
Aged about 47 years
Proprietor of N.N. Traders
Nagasamudra Village
Banavara Hobli, Arasikere Taluk
Hassan District - 573103.
.. Petitioner
(By Sri. Prakash T - Advocate)
AND
1. State of Karnataka
By Javagal Police Station
Arasikere Rural Circle
Hassan District
Rep. by Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. Sri. Somashekar J.S
S/o. Late J.G.Siddappa Shetty
Aged about 60 years
Proprietor, Sonavi Associates
Lakshmipura, Javagal Hobli
Arasikere Taluk - 573125.
..Respondents
(By Sri. Rahul Rai .K - HCGP for R-1;
Sri. G. Sanjaya - Advocate for R-2)
:2:
This Criminal Petition filed Under Section, 482 of
Cr.P.C by the advocate for the petitioner pleased to quash
FIR in Cr.No.275/2018 of Javagal Police Station for the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 511, 34, 420,
379 of IPC vide Annexure-A registered in pursuance of the
private complaint pending on the file of II-Addl. Civil
Judge and JMFC, at Arasikere, Hassan District, so far as
the petitioner is concerned.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
Learned counsel Sri Prakash.T. for the petitioner, learned counsel Sri G.Sanjaya, for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 are present before the Court physically.
2. The petitioner under this petition is seeking for quashment of case in Crime No.275/2018 registered by Javagal Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 520, 511 r/w 34 of IPC which is pending before the II Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere, Hassan District.
3. Complainant namely Somashekar.J.S. who is a businessman by avocation approached Javagal Police :3: Station by filing complaint against the accused namely Manjunatha. Accordingly, the case in Crime No.275/2018 came to be registered by the police having jurisdiction by recording FIR dated 30.11.2018 for the offences which are reflected in the FIR.
4. Whereas under this petition, the petitioner and respondent have filed an application under Section 320(2) and (8) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compound the offences and consequently quash the case in Crime No.275/2018 arising out of PCR No.98/2018 which is pending before the II Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC at Arsikere.
5. It is stated in the application that petitioner and complainant have compromised the matter amicably in all the connected matters and compromise petition was filed in the connected cheque bounce cases i.e., C.C.No.2840/2018, C.C.No.3083/2018 and C.C.No. 3084/2018 before the I Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC at Arsikere. The copy of the compromise petition and the :4: order sheet filed in the above cases are produced as Annexures-A to F. In view of the settlement arrived that the second respondent/complainant is not willing to continue the criminal proceedings initiated by him against the petitioner/accused and has no objection to quash the proceedings. The petitioner and the complainant/second respondent have understood the contents of the application and out of their free will, volition and without any force have subscribed their signatures to this application and seeking permission to compound the offences and consequently to quash the case in Crime No.275/2018. The parties have subscribed their signatures to the application and identified by their counsel respectively.
6. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan [(2019) 5 SCC 688] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extensively addressed the issues, scope and object of Section 482 and 320 of Cr.P.C. relating to quashment of :5: even non-compoundable offences, when permissible, effect of compromise, seriousness of crime and its social impact. Non-application of mind on sole ground that there is a compromise between accused and complainant held unwarranted. However, power of quashing is different from power of compounding. There is no conflict of decisions. The quashment would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. The Court has to apply its mind fully to ascertain:
(i) Whether it is crime against the society or against individual alone;
(ii) Seriousness, nature, category and what kind of crime for which the offences is committed and how committed;
(iii) Whether the offences are under the Special statute;
(iv) The stage of proceedings;
(v) Conduct and antecedants of the accused;
:6:
(vi) Whether the accused is absconding and why he was absconding and how he entered into compromise with the complainant;
(vii) The criminal proceedings arising out of civil disputes or matrimonial disputes having overwhelmingly and predominating civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and when the parties have resolved their entire dispute among themselves;
(viii) Regard to the nature and gravity of the crime whether it is heinous or serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
7. Keeping in view the reasons made out in the application filed by both the parties, it is deemed :7: appropriate to state that it requires for maintaining harmonious relationship between the parties in future. Therefore, the application is taken on record.
8. In the instant case both the petitioner and respondent No.2 have filed application under Section 320(2) and (8) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compound the offence and consequently, seeking quashment of the case in Crime No.275/2018 which is registered by the Javagal Police Station, Hassan District. Therefore, keeping in view the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and so also, that the reasons assigned in the application founds to be justifiable, it is deemed appropriate for quashment of criminal proceedings in Crime No.275/2018.
9. In terms of the aforesaid reasons, I have to proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and so also, the application :8: filed under Section 320(2) and (8) of Cr.P.C are hereby allowed. Consequently, the case in Crime No.275/2018 arising out of PCR No.98/2018 is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE DKB