Siddalingayya vs D.S. Kalmat And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3470 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

        CRIMINAL PETITION No.201292/2021

BETWEEN

SIDDALINGAYYA
S/O DEVAYYA, AGE: 44 YEARS
OCC: ADVOCATE
R/O NEAR UPPARWADI SCHOOL
SINDHANUR
DIST: RAICHUR-584 101.                ...PETITIONER

      (By Sri SHIVANAND V PATTANASHETTI, ADV.,)

AND

1.    D.S. KALMAT
      S/O D. SIDDAYYA KALMAT
      AGE: 71 YEARS
      OCC: ADVOCATE AND TAX CONSULTANT
      R/O SINDHANUR
      DIST: RAICHUR-584 101.

2.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      R/BY ADDL. SPP
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
      KALABURAGI BENCH
      (THROUGH SINDHANUR TOWN P.S.,
      DIST: RAICHUR-584 101)             ...RESPONDENT

     (By Sri. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADV., FOR R1
         Sri. GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R2)
                                  2


    THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.1021/2010 (P.C.NO.40/2010) REGISTERED BY THE
SINDHANUR TOWN POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 379, 420, 467 AND 468 OF IPC,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT
AT SINDHANUR, DIST.RAICHUR.


     THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                           ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

for respondent No.2/State.

2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., praying this Court to quash the proceedings

initiated against the petitioner herein at the instance of

respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under

Sections 379, 420, 467 and 468 of IPC.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the

complainant is an Advocate and Tax Consultant. The first

respondent is the junior colleague of the complainant and

a loan was availed for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and

executed a registered simple mortgage deed in favour of

complainant's wife in the presence of witnessess. The

accused did not come forward to repay the money and a

legal notice was issued and waited for a period of one

year, then the suit was filed in O.S.No.29/2009. In the

written statement, the accused had denied that he availed

the loan but admitted the execution of the mortgage deed.

4. Both the counsel now submit that they have

compromised the matter and sought for an order to

compound the offences which have been registered against

the petitioner by filing an application under Section 320 (1

& 2) of Cr.P.C. The trial Court rejected the application on

the ground that the offences under Sections 467 and 468

of IPC are not compoundable offences and this Court has

no power to permit the parties to compound the offences.

Hence, they have approached this Court invoking Section

482 of Cr.P.C.

5. The respective counsel would submit that when

the matter is settled and both the petitioner as well as the

first respondent are the advocates, who were practicing,

on the advise of the well-wishers the matter is

compromised.

6. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

GIAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER reported

in (2012) 10 SCC 303, while permitting to compound the

offences in discussion with Sections 482 and 320 of

Cr.P.C., held that in a 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 held that 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. It

is also held that before exercise of inherent quashment

power under Section 482, High Court must have due

regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal

impact.

7. Having considered the principles laid down in

the judgment, it is clear that the offences, which have

been invoked are not the serious offences as held by the

Apex Court. In the case on hand, the offences, which have

been invoked are private in nature regarding the dispute is

in respect of loan transaction and execution of the

document. When such being the case, the offences

invoked are not attract the public importance and it is

interse between the senior counsel and the junior counsel.

When such being the facts and circumstances of the case

and considering the factual aspects, it is appropriate to

invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings

initiated against the petitioner herein at the instance of the

first respondent.

8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.1021/2010 arising out of P.C.No.40/2010 registered by the Sindhanur Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 467 and 468 of IPC, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC., Court at Sindhanur, District: Raichur, is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cp*