Karnataka High Court
K S Rohit @ Onte vs State Of Karnataka on 13 June, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K. N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO.9648/2017
C/W
CRL.P. NOS. 9767/2017, 9768/2017,
9762/2017, 3024/2017, 9833/2017
IN CRL.P. NO.9648/2017
BETWEEN
1. K S ROHIT @ ONTE
S/O SRINIVAS RAO
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO.E 22, CHITRAKUT
CENTURY APARTMENT
BEHIND SHANTI SAGAR HOTEL
SAHAKAR NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 092
2. SUNIL KUMAR @ SILENT SUNIL
S/O R KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S.24, FORTUNE IKON APARTMENT
JODIDHAR ASHWATHAPPA LAYOUT
SAHAKAR NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 092
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DIWAKARA K., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
YELAHANKA POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI.RAMESH C
S/O CHINNAPPA
2
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.1718, I MAIN
KAMAKSHAMMA LAYOUT
YELHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. RAGHUNATH V., ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.17840/2017 IN CRIME NO.42/2017 AGAINST
THE PETITIONER HEREIN, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SS.
341, 504, 506, 120(B), 212 R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SECTION 27 AND 30 OF THE INDIAN ARMS ACT
PENDING BEFORE THE XLIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU VIDE
ANNEXURE A AND B.
IN CRL.P. NO. 9767/2017
BETWEEN
SRIDHAR MURTY @ AGNI SHRIDHAR
S/O LATE M C TAMMEGOWDA
AGED 62 YEARS
#39, 9TH B MAIN, ISRO LAYOUT
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
BENGALURU CITY
KARNATKA 560 078 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C. H. HANUMANTHARAYA, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
YELAHANKA PS
REP. BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
COMPLEX, BANGALORE-01
3
2. RAMESH @ TATA RAMESH
S/O CHENNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
NO.1718, KAMAKSHAMMA LAYOUT
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU CITY 560 064
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. RAGHUNATH V., ADV. FOR R2.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME
NO.42/2017 OF YELAHANKA POLICE STATION FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/SS. 341, 504, 506, 120B, 212 R/W 34
OF IPC AND SECTION 27 AND 30 OF ARMS ACT WITH
RESPECT TO THE ABOVE NAMED PETITIONER PENDING
ON THE FILE OF 44TH ACMM COURT IN
C.C.NO.17840/2017, BANGALORE CITY AND QUASH ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON.
IN CRL.P. NO. 9768/2017
BETWEEN
SYED AMAN @ AHAMADULLA SHARIFF
@ BACHCHAN, S/O MOHAMMED AMEER
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.324, 1ST MAIN, 46TH CROSS
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C. H. HANUMANTHARAYA, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
YELAHANKA PS
REP. BY LEARNED, STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
COMPLEX, BANGALORE-01
4
2. RAMESH @ TATA RAMESH
S/O CHENNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
NO.1718, KAMAKSHAMMA LAYOUT
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU CITY 560 064
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. RAGHUNATH V., ADV. FOR R2.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN
CR.NO.42/2017 OF YELAHANKA POLICE STATION FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/SS. 341, 504, 506, 212, 120B R/W
34 OF IPC AND SECS.27 & 30 OF ARMS ACT WITH
RESPECT TO THE ABOVE NAMED PETITIONER PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV A.C.M.M, BANGALORE IN
C.C.NO.17840/2017 BANGALORE AND QUASH ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON.
IN CRL.P. NO. 9762/2017
BETWEEN
N NARASIMHAMURTHY @ KUMAR
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH @ MUNRAJAPPA
AGED 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.2373
NEAR RK FLOUR MILL
SANJIVININAGAR
SAHAKARNAGAR POST
BENGALURU 560 091 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION
YELAHANKA SUB-DIVSION
BENGLAURU, REP. BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
5
DR BR AMBEDKARVEEDHI
BENGALURU 560 001
2. MR RAMESH @ TATA RAMESH
S/O CHINNAPPA, AGED 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1718,
1ST MAIN, KAMAKASHAMMA LAYOUT
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU 560 064
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. V. RAGHUNATH, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.07.2017
PASSED BY THE XLIV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN
C.C.NO.17840/2017 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE
AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/SS. 341, 504, 506, 120(B) AND 212 R/W 34 OF IPC
AND SECS. 27 AND 30 OF ARMS ACT AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING
THEREON INSOFAR AS THE SAME RELATES TO THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6
IN CRL.P. NO. 3024/2017
BETWEEN
SRI M. SATHISH
S/O LATE MUNIRAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT NO.6, HOYSALA
SRI KRISHNA APARTMENTS
60FT ROAD, SANJAYNAGAR
BANGALORE-560 094 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SARAVANA, ADV. FOR
SRI. D. R. RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR LEX NEXUS)
6
AND
1. THE STATE BY STATION HOUSE
OFFICER, YELAHANKA POLICE STATION
BANGALORE-560 064
2. SRI RAMESH C
S/O CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.1718, I MAIN
KAMAKSHAMMA LAYOUT
YELHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. RAGHUNATH V., ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR/COMPLAINT
AND ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME
NO.42/2017 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER
WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLIV A.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU AT THE INSTANCE OF RESPONDENT, FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/SS. 341, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC,
1860 AND U/Ss. 27 AND 30 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT,
1959.
IN CRL.P. NO. 9833/2017
BETWEEN
1. M C UMESH
S/O M B CHANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT 42, 1ST CROSS
G.K.V. NAGAR
ALLALASANDRA
BANGALORE-560 065
2. R VISHNUVARDHAN @ VISHNU
S/O K RAMASWAMY
7
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT 6/32, OFF HIG COLONY
RMV 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560 094 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M. N. NEHRU, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
YELAHANKA POLICE STATION
BANGALORE-560 064
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001
2. SRI RAMESH C @ TATA RAMESH
S/O CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO. 1718, 1ST MAIN
KAMAKSHAMA LAYOUT
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. RAGHUNATH V., ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TAKING
COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES ON 06.07.2017 IN
C.C.NO.17840/2017 ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.42/2017 AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN
C.C.NO.17840/2017 WHICH IS REGISTERED AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF
XLIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
AT BANGALORE AT THE INSTANCE OF RESPONDENT-
POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SS. 341, 504, 506,
120B, 212 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 27 AND 30
OF ARMS ACT.
8
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.Raghunath V., Advocate, has filed vakalath for Respondent No.2 in all the above petitions. .
2. The petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 in Crl.P. No.9648/2017 are arraigned as Accused Nos.2 & 3; Petitioner in Crl.P. No.9767/2017 is arraigned as Accused No.9; petitioner in Crl.P. No.9768/2017 is arraigned as Accused No.8; petitioner in Crl.P. No.9762/2017 is arraigned as Accused No.6; petitioner in Crl.P. No.3024/2017 is arraigned as Accused No.1 and petitioners in Crl.P. No.9833/2017 are arraigned as Accused No.4 & 5 respectively in C.C. No.17840/2017 which is pending on the file of 44th Addl. CMM, Bengaluru (arising out of Crime No.42/2017 of Yelahanka P.S., Bengaluru), for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 120(B), 212 r/w. 34 of IPC and Sections 26 & 30 of the Arms Act. The 9 petitioners have sought for quashing of the above said proceedings.
3. As could be seen from the charge sheet, the 2nd respondent herein in all the cases by name Sri. C. Ramesh @ Tata Ramesh, S/o. Chinnappa, is the victim. The offences alleged are under Sections 341, 504, 506, 120-B, 212 r/w. 34 of IPC and also under Sections 27 & 30 of the Arms Act. There is no dispute that, in order to file the charge sheet no sanction was obtained from the Deputy Commissioner for the offences under Sections 27 & 30 of the Arms Act. The other offences noted above are almost compoundable in nature except Sections 506, 120(B) and 212 of IPC.
4. The parties have compromised the matter compounding the offences in all these petitions. Except Accused No.3, who is petitioner No.2 in Crl.P. No.9648/2017 all other accused persons (petitioners herein) and Respondent No.2- complainant (Victim) along with their counsels are present before the court and they have presented the compromise petition. 10 Accused No.3 has also filed the Memorandum of Facts for compounding the offences and his signature has been taken in the presence of Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, by his counsel.
5. In all the above cases, the petitioners/accused and the 2nd respondent have filed a compromise petition reporting compromise of the above said cases compounding the offences. It is submitted that, all the accused persons and the victim (complainant) belong to the same city and due to some misunderstanding, the incident had happened and a complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 9. But the victim was not injured as alleged in the complaint and petitioners and respondent No.2 were known to each other. In order to lead a happy life, they have entered into a settlement by means of settling their scores and they have all filed a joint affidavit and joint memo before the court reporting compromise. As I have already noted above, the consent has not been taken by the Deputy Commissioner to file charge sheet under provisions of 11 Arms Act and sofar as the offences alleged under the Arms Act are concerned, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. In respect of the rest of the offences are concerned, the parties have filed compromise petition. Hence, there is no legal impediment to record the compromise.
6. At this stage, it is worth to note here a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has given certain guidelines with regard to quashing of the proceedings whenever the parties have entered into compromise. The relevant portion of the said decision reads thus:- .
"Held -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 12 S.482, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact. .............
Thus, held, 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, 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.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
"But criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil
flavour stand on a different footing - 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 13 criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between parties and whether to secure ends of justice, it is appropriate the criminal case it put to an end. If such question(s) are answered in the affirmative, High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings..."
7. The factual matrix of these cases, in my opinion, also falls within the categories of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the petitions are allowed. The compromise petition and the Joint Memo are accepted. The proceedings in C.C. No.17840/2017, arising out of Crime No.42/2017 of Yelahanka P.S., Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 120(B), 212 r/w. 34 of IPC and Sections 27 & 30 of Arms Act and now pending before the 44th Addl. CMM, Bengaluru, and all further proceedings in connection with the said case, insofar as the petitioners in these petitions concerned, is hereby quashed.
Accused No.3, who is in custody shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. 14
The bail and surety bonds executed by the petitioners herein and their respective sureties are stand cancelled.
The office is directed to send an intimation to the concerned Jail Authorities to release the petitioner-Sunil Kumar @ Silent Sunil (A3), where the he is said to have been in custody, if he is not required in any other case.
In view of disposal of this case, the application-IA No.1/2016 filed for stay filed in all the above cases, do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said applications stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*