Mateen H @ Mono Mateen vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 2106 Kant

                            1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8265/2021

BETWEEN:

MATEEN H @ MONO MATEEN
S/O. HASSIN, 19 YEARS
RAT, NADEEM TEA HOUSE
BESIDE PAN BEEDA SHOP
GANGONAHALLI MAIN ROAD
GANGONAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 039
                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHAIKH SAOUD , ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION
       REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       BENGALURU - 560 001

2.     DIVYASHREE U D/O UMESH
       AGED 14 YEARS MINOR UNDER
       GUARDIANSHIP OF HER FATHER
       UMESH S/O. CHANNA BASVAYYA
       R/AT NEAR MUKTHINAGA TEMPLE
       MALIGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
       RAMOHALLI, KENGERI POST
       BENGALURU - 560 027

3.     MANASA U D/O. UMESH
       AGED 17 YEARS MINOR UNDER
       GUARDIANSHIP OF HER FATHER
       UMESH S/O. CHANNA BASAVAYYA
                                2


        R/AT NEAR MUKTHINAGA TEMPLE
        MALIGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
        RAMOHALLI, KENGERI POST
        BENGALURU - 560 027
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NOORANI P.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
    SRI. B.J. ROHITH, HCGP FOR R1)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO THIS COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO THE
PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF SPL.C.NO.44/2020 FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 307 OF IPC PENDING
ON THE FILE OF L ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU AND PETITION MAY BE PLEASED BE
ALLOWED.

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking for quashing of the

criminal proceedings in Spl.Case No.44/2020 on the file

of L Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru,

registered by Chandra Layout Police Station for the

offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal

Code.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for

the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel appearing

for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. During the pendency of this petition, both the

counsel for the petitioner-accused and respondent Nos.2

and 3 have filed a joint compromise application under

Section 320 read with 482 of Cr.P.C along with joint

affidavit for having settled the dispute amicably.

4. Respondent No.2 - Ms.Divyashree U and

respondent No.3 - Ms.Manasa U, who are the complainant

and the victim are present. Petitioner-accused is

identified by his Advocate - Sri.Shaikh Saoud and

respondent Nos.2 and 3 are identified by their Advocate -

Sri. Noorani.P.S.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

contended that the injuries sustained by the victim is

simple injury and there is no evidence to attract Section

307 and it attracts Section 324 of IPC and hence, he

prays to allow the application for compounding offence.

6. The wound certificate produced by the learned

counsel for the petitioner pertaining to respondent

No.3-victim shows the injury over the left side of chest

wall and left side of lumbar region measuring 2 X 2 cm

and injury is simple in nature. Even on perusal of FIR and

the complaint, it does not make out case for the offence

under Section 307 of IPC. Merely police have filed case,

FIR and Charge sheet under Section 307 of IPC, which

cannot be considered and there is intention for the

accused to commit murder and assault. Therefore, it is

just and proper to allow the parties to compound the

offence. That apart, the petitioner has agreed to marry

respondent No.3 and also submits that the petitioner and

respondent No.3 are minor and CW-6/Father of

respondent No.3 has signed on the compounding

application and also on affidavit.

7. Therefore, considering the facts and

circumstances of the case and also the petitioner and

respondent No.3 have decided to get marry and in view

of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND

ANOTHER reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it

has held that when the parties have settled their

dispute and if it is not affecting the public at large, the

Court can quash the criminal proceedings. Therefore,

the parties are permitted to settle their dispute

amicably.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the

following:

ORDER

I. In terms of I.A.No.1/2022, Criminal petition

is allowed. Consequently, the petition is

allowed.

Criminal proceedings against the petitioner-

accused in Spl.Case No.44/2020 on the file

of L Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru, registered by Chandra Layout

Police Station for the offence punishable

under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, is

hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RKA