Karnataka High Court
M Vijayalakshmi vs State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. 2725/2018
BETWEEN:
1. M. Vijayalakshmi
W/o. T.K. Chandrasekaran
Aged about 63 years
R/a No.2, BS3, Shubhamangala Apts.
Sureshnagar 3rd Street
Valasaravakkam, Chennai-600 087.
2. Viswapriya.C
D/o T.K. Chandrasekaran
Aged about 63 years
R/a No.2, BS3, Shubhamangala Apts.
Sureshnagar 3rd Street
Valasaravakkam, Chennai-600 087.
... Petitioners
(By Sri. Syed Aqdus, Adv. for Sri Mahesh Y.L., Adv.)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Rep. by the State Public Prosecutor
High Court Complex
Bangalore-560 001.
2. Rajini Sivalingam
S/o. Sivalingam
Aged about 39 years
R/a No.1/189, A Block, 207
Gopalan Grandeur Apts.
2
Mahadevapura post
Hoodi, Bangalore-560048. ... Respondents
(Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP)
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings as against the
petitioners above named in the Court below, in C.C.
No.874/2016 pending on the file of the IV ACMM,
Bangalore City, arising out of Cr.No.358/2016 of
Jnanabharathi Police Station, for the offences punishable
under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 204, 504, 506, 507 read
with 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition is coming on for admission this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The learned counsel Sri P. Kumaravel submits that he has filed vakalath for respondent No.2-Sri Rajini Sivalingam. Petitioners 1 and 2 and their counsel are present before the Court. The parties have filed a joint memo seeking permission of this Court to compound the offences, and to report compromise before this Court and also sought for quashing of the proceedings as sought for in the petition on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.
3
2. Perused the joint memo wherein it is categorically stated by the parties that the respondent No.2 has accepted to withdraw the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners by virtue of the compromise between the parties. It is stated that in O.S.No.11/2015, the matter was referred to Lok Adalath and both the parties herein had agreed to settle the matter and consequently, application was filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC before the Hon'ble City Civil Judge, Bengaluru on 04.09.2017. In view of the settlement of the matter in respect of the civil dispute between the parties, the parties have also agreed for co-operating with each other for quashing of criminal proceedings lodged by respondent No.2 against the petitioner herein.
3. On careful perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the police have filed charge sheet against the petitioners herein on the complaint lodged by the 2nd 4 respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 204, 504, 506, 507 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. Further, on careful perusal of the averments in the complaint i.e. in the charge sheet, it appears that there is some family dispute with regard to the landed properties and also some other movable properties between the parties. The relationship between the parties are that, the respondent No.2 is the relative of the petitioners herein. Therefore, in view of the relationship between the parties and the offences being not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and also owing to the fact that it is a dispute purely between the private parties and that there is no impact on the society, the compromise is ordered to be permitted.
5. In the above circumstances, it is worth to refer a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, between Gian Singh and State of Punjab and Another reported in [(2012) 5 10 SCC 303], wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:-
"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 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing - Offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership or lie transactions or offences arising 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 the parties whether to secure ends of justice, it is appropriate the criminal case is 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 proceeding."6
6. The factual matrix of this case also falls within the categories of the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra. Therefore there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings as prayed for.
Accordingly, The Criminal Petition is allowed. The Joint Memo filed by the parties is hereby accepted. By virtue of the compromise entered into between the parties, the case in C.C.No.874/2016 (Arising out of Cr.No.358/2016 of Jnanabharathi Police Station) for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 204, 504, 506, 507 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and all further proceedings therein are hereby quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE rs