Sri. Manjunatha vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3524 Kant

                            :1:



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

                         BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

        CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1512 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
Sri. Manjunatha
S/o Lata N.M. Kotturappa
Aged about 47 years
Proprietor of N.N. Traders
Nagasamudra Village
Banavara Hobli, Arasikere Taluk
Hassan District - 573103.
                                           .. Petitioner
(By Sri. Prakash T - Advocate)

AND
1.  State of Karnataka
    By Javagal Police Station
    Arasikere Rural Circle
    Hassan District
    Rep. by Public Prosecutor
    High Court Building
    Bengaluru - 560 001.

2.   Sri. Somashekar J.S
     S/o. Late J.G.Siddappa Shetty
     Aged about 60 years
     Proprietor, Sonavi Associates
     Lakshmipura, Javagal Hobli
     Arasikere Taluk - 573125.
                                         ..Respondents
(By Sri. Rahul Rai .K - HCGP for R-1;
   Sri. G. Sanjaya - Advocate for R-2)
                            :2:



      This Criminal Petition filed Under Section, 482 of
Cr.P.C by the advocate for the petitioner pleased to quash
FIR in Cr.No.275/2018 of Javagal Police Station for the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 511, 34, 420,
379 of IPC vide Annexure-A registered in pursuance of the
private complaint pending on the file of II-Addl. Civil
Judge and JMFC, at Arasikere, Hassan District, so far as
the petitioner is concerned.

      This petition coming on for Admission this day, the
court made the following:

                       ORDER

Learned counsel Sri Prakash.T. for the petitioner,

learned counsel Sri G.Sanjaya, for respondent No.2 and

learned HCGP for respondent No.1 are present before the

Court physically.

2. The petitioner under this petition is seeking for

quashment of case in Crime No.275/2018 registered by

Javagal Police Station for the offence punishable under

Sections 379, 520, 511 r/w 34 of IPC which is pending

before the II Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere,

Hassan District.

3. Complainant namely Somashekar.J.S. who is a

businessman by avocation approached Javagal Police

Station by filing complaint against the accused namely

Manjunatha. Accordingly, the case in Crime No.275/2018

came to be registered by the police having jurisdiction by

recording FIR dated 30.11.2018 for the offences which are

reflected in the FIR.

4. Whereas under this petition, the petitioner and

respondent have filed an application under Section 320(2)

and (8) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compound the

offences and consequently quash the case in Crime

No.275/2018 arising out of PCR No.98/2018 which is

pending before the II Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC at

Arsikere.

5. It is stated in the application that petitioner and

complainant have compromised the matter amicably in all

the connected matters and compromise petition was filed

in the connected cheque bounce cases i.e.,

C.C.No.2840/2018, C.C.No.3083/2018 and C.C.No.

3084/2018 before the I Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC at

Arsikere. The copy of the compromise petition and the

order sheet filed in the above cases are produced as

Annexures-A to F. In view of the settlement arrived that

the second respondent/complainant is not willing to

continue the criminal proceedings initiated by him against

the petitioner/accused and has no objection to quash the

proceedings. The petitioner and the complainant/second

respondent have understood the contents of the

application and out of their free will, volition and without

any force have subscribed their signatures to this

application and seeking permission to compound the

offences and consequently to quash the case in Crime

No.275/2018. The parties have subscribed their

signatures to the application and identified by their

counsel respectively.

6. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan [(2019) 5

SCC 688] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

extensively addressed the issues, scope and object of

Section 482 and 320 of Cr.P.C. relating to quashment of

even non-compoundable offences, when permissible, effect

of compromise, seriousness of crime and its social impact.

Non-application of mind on sole ground that there is a

compromise between accused and complainant held

unwarranted. However, power of quashing is different

from power of compounding. There is no conflict of

decisions. The quashment would depend upon facts and

circumstances of each case. The Court has to apply its

mind fully to ascertain:

(i) Whether it is crime against the society or

against individual alone;

(ii) Seriousness, nature, category and what kind of

crime for which the offences is committed and how

committed;

(iii) Whether the offences are under the Special

statute;

     (iv)    The stage of proceedings;

     (v)     Conduct and antecedants of the accused;

(vi) Whether the accused is absconding and why

he was absconding and how he entered into compromise

with the complainant;

(vii) The criminal proceedings arising out of civil

disputes or matrimonial disputes having overwhelmingly

and predominating civil flavour stand on a different

footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the

offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile,

civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences

arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the

family disputes where the wrong is basically private or

personal in nature and when the parties have resolved

their entire dispute among themselves;

(viii) Regard to the nature and gravity of the crime

whether it is heinous or serious offences of mental

depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.

cannot be fittingly quashed. Such offences are not private

in nature and have a serious impact on society.

7. Keeping in view the reasons made out in the

application filed by both the parties, it is deemed

appropriate to state that it requires for maintaining

harmonious relationship between the parties in future.

Therefore, the application is taken on record.

8. In the instant case both the petitioner and

respondent No.2 have filed application under Section

320(2) and (8) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compound

the offence and consequently, seeking quashment of the

case in Crime No.275/2018 which is registered by the

Javagal Police Station, Hassan District. Therefore, keeping

in view the submission made by the learned counsel for

the parties and so also, that the reasons assigned in the

application founds to be justifiable, it is deemed

appropriate for quashment of criminal proceedings in

Crime No.275/2018.

9. In terms of the aforesaid reasons, I have to

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition filed by the petitioner/accused

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and so also, the application

filed under Section 320(2) and (8) of Cr.P.C are hereby

allowed. Consequently, the case in Crime No.275/2018

arising out of PCR No.98/2018 is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DKB