Karnataka High Court
Lanka Amjad S/O Shahul Hameed vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 December, 2021
Bench: M.G.Umapresided Bymguj
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRL.P.NO.101910/2021
BETWEEN
LANKA AMJAD S/O SHAHUL HAMEED
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT LANKA HOUSE
BATTAKAV, BHATKAL TALUK, BHATKAL-581320.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.ISMAIL MUNEEB MUSBA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BHATKAL TOWN POLICE STATION
THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
STATE OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING
DHARWAD - 580011.
2. R.M. MUSADDIQ S/O MOHAMMAD MEERA
RUKNUDDIN, PRESENTLY R/AT 'NOOR MAHAL'
MADINA COLONY, JAMIABAD ROAD,
BHATKAL-581320.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN.K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. VIJAY.S.CHINIWAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2020 PASSED BY PRL.
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR TAKING
COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN SC NO.19/2020 (ARISING
FROM CC NO.259/2020 AND FIR IN CRIME NO.125/1995 REGISTERED
BY BHATKAL TOWN P.S.) AND ALSO CHARGE SHEET FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 341, 363, 342, 307 R/W 149 OF IPC AS PER
ANNEXURE-A AND D.
-2-
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A.ON THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.3 is before this
Court seeking to quash the order dated 10.06.2020
passed by the Prl.District and Sessions Court,
Uttara Kannada, Karwar (for short 'the trial Court')
in S.C.No.19/2020 (arising out of C.C.No.259/2020
and FIR in crime No.125/1995 registered by Bhatkal
Town police station), for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 341, 363, 342, 307 read
with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short
'IPC')
2. Learned counsel for petitioner-accused
No.3 and learned counsel for respondent No.2-
complainant filed a joint memo reporting settlement
between the parties.
3. Complainant and petitioner are present.
Learned counsel for the petitioner and the
complainant identified the respective parties.
4. Both the parties have admitted the terms
of the joint memo. The respondent-complainant
submitted no objection to allow the petition.
5. Heard learned counsel Sri.Ismail Muneeb
Musba., for the petitioner and learned counsel
Sri.Vijay.S.Chiniwar.,for respondent No.2 and
learned HCGP Sri.Praveen.K.Uppar., for respondent
No.1.
6. Perused the materials on record.
7. The petitioner herein arrayed accused
No.3 in the original S.C.No.3/1996 is the accused in
split up S.C.No.19/2020. It is stated that crime
No.125/1995 was registered by the Bhatkal Town
Police Station against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341,
363, 342, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC. After
filing of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate
took cognizance of the offences and registered
C.C.No.259/2020. After committal the original S.C
No.3/1996 was pending before the trial Court. It is
stated that accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 were acquitted
by the trial Court, as none of the material witnesses
supported the case of the prosecution. Accused
No.4, against whom a split up S.C.No.103/2008 was
filed said to have approached this Court by filing
Crl.P.No.10581/2013. The said petition was came to
be allowed vide order dated 16.09.2013 and the
criminal proceedings against accused No.4 was
quashed.
8. Now the petitioner-accused No.3 is before
this Court and filed the joint memo along with
complainant stating that they have compounded the
offences and the criminal proceedings pending
against the petitioner is to be quashed.
9. On perusal of the materials on record, it is
clear that none of the material witnesses have
supported the case of prosecution and therefore,
learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos.1, 2
and 5 vide judgment dated 12.11.1997 passed in
S.C.No.3/1996. The case against petitioner-accused
No.3 was split up. Even if the criminal proceeding
against the present petitioner is to proceed, no
purpose would be served, as there are absolutely no
materials to prove the contention of the
prosecution. As per the joint memo filed by both the
parties, the incident is of the year 1995 and 25
years have lapsed since the incident had occurred.
The complainant and the petitioner are the
residents of Bhatkal Town and at present they have
buried their ill-will and are residing harmoniously.
In view of the above, I do not find any reason to
reject the joint memo. Hence, the same is accepted.
10. In view of the joint memo, the criminal
petition is allowed.
11. The criminal proceedings in
S.C.No.19/2020, pending on the file of Prl. District
and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar,
(arising out of C.C.No.259/2020 and FIR in crime
No.125/1995 registered by Bhatkal Town police
station), for the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 341, 363, 342, 307 read with Section 149
of Indian Penal Code, is quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE
AM/-
