Karnataka High Court
Sri Deepak V vs State Of Karnataka By on 5 January, 2021
Author: K.Somashekar
: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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
