:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3334 OF 2017
BETWEEN
Sri Deepak V
S/o T. Venkataswamappa
Aged about 40 years
Residing at No.169, D.T. Road
Kothanur Village / Post
Bangalore - 560 077.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Srinivas .N., Advocate)
AND
1. State of Karnataka by
Kothanur Police Station
Bangalore - 560 077
SPP, High Court of Karnataka
Bangalore-560 001.
2. Sri. Venkatesh
S/o Narayanappa
Aged about 40 years
R/at Ramachandrappa Building
Nagareshwara Nagenahalli
Kothanur
Bangalore - 560 077.
... Respondents
(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP for R-1;
Sri Umesh B.N. - Advocate for R-2)
:2:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the FIR
registration of case pending against him in
Cr.No.17/2017, on the file of 1st Respondent Police for the
offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 of
IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, pending on the
file of II-Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl.
Judge, Bangalore.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking to quash the FIR and registration of the crime against the accused in Cr.No.17/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, pending on the file of II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge, Bangalore City.
2. This petition is listed for admission. But learned counsel Shri N. Srinivas and counsel Shri Umesh B.N for Respondent No.2 are present before court physically and also have kept present the complainant / 2nd respondent :3: and the accused / petitioner herein and they have filed an application under Section 320 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 15(A) of Chapter IV A Sub-section (5) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 along with a joint memo.
3. The complainant and the accused in Cr.No.17/2017 are present before the court and have filed the said application to compromise the cases registered by the first respondent / Kothanur P.S., Bangalore City. The second respondent Venkatesh had filed a written complaint before the Kothnur P.S., Bangalore City and based upon his complaint, the case in Cr.No.17/2017 came to be registered for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner Shri Deepak V. alleges to have called the complainant / 2nd respondent on his mobile phone and is said to have abused him in filthy language and also held his caste, which wounded his feeling. Thereafter, complainant had approached the first respondent / Kothanur P.S. in order to file a complaint against the accused.
:4:
Whereas the complainant is the victim and the accused is alleged to have committed an offence in the substance of the FIR said to have been recorded by the police in Cr.No.17/2017. But however, now they have filed an application under Section 320 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Chapter IV-A Section 15-A, Clause 5 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 along with a joint memo stating that the petitioner who is arraigned as accused and the second respondent who is arraigned as complainant have sorted out the differences arising between them with the intervention of the well wishers with an intention to lead a harmonious life in society. Consequently, the petitioner and the second respondent are not inclined to persuade these proceedings pending against the accused in Cr.No.17/2017 and are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused in Cr.No.17/2017.
4. The petitioner who is arraigned as an accused and the second respondent who is the author of the complaint in Cr.No.17/2017 are present before court physically. But the specific allegation under the special enactment of the :5: SC & ST Act, of 1989 by abusing Respondent No.2 in a filthy language by holding his caste, which has wounded his feelings, it is only to be looked into the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution and only the worthwhile evidence to be considered as to whether the accused had abused the complainant by holding his caste in a filthy language.
5. But in the instant case, the petitioner / accused and the Respondent No.2 / complainant have come forward and filed an application seeking to compromise the issues arising between them. Therefore, there is no legal obstacle to record the compromise arrived at in terms of the application filed by them by way of a joint memo.
Hence, taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of the case, the compromise petition filed by the complainant and the accused requires to be accepted in order to let them live in the society harmoniously. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of (GIAN SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND :6: ANOTHER (2012) 10 SCC 303)), whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has issued certain guidelines with regard to quashing the criminal proceedings whenever the parties have entered into a compromise of their disputes. Hence, it is relevant to refer to the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision, wherein it is held thus:
"The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise :7: of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime." The unpleasant incident narrated in the complaint and in the substance of the FIR is said to have taken place in a spur of the moment. Hence, in order to facilitate the parties to lead a harmonious life in the society in future, it is just and proper to accept the compromise application filed by them with a joint memo. Therefore, in the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case which also falls with the guidelines rendered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh (supra), the proceedings initiated against the petitioner / accused requires to be quashed in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Therefore, keeping in view the ratio of the reliance and so also the dispute arising between the complainant and the accused having been compromised as per the joint memo submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, it is appropriate to accept the settlement report submitted through joint memo and so also the petition requires to be allowed in order to :8: maintain harmonious relationship between the parties, in future.
6. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed and the proceedings in Cr.No.17/2017 of Kothnur P.S. which is pending before the Court of the II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore City, for offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS