Sri Sadiq (As Per Aadhar Jaffar ... vs State By Viveknagar Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 191 Kant

                        1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                     BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

       CRIMINAL PETITION No.9413 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

SRI SADIQ
(AS PER AADHAR JAFFAR SADIQ)
S/O. ALLA BAKSH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
MANGAMMANA PALYA
HSR LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 092
                                   ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE BY VIVEKNAGAR POLICE
     BANGALORE
     REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
     BANGALORE - 560 001

2.   MANTASHA KHAN
     D/O. LATE CHOTE KHAN
     AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
     4TH FLOOR, 27TH 'C' CROSS
     1ST MAIN, EJIPURA
     VIVEKNAGAR POST
                                2


     BANGALORE - 47.
                                  ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI M.Y.SREENIVASAN, ADV. FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH ALL THE
PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.115/2021 U/S 418, 420, 376,
323, 506, 34 OF IPC FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
POLICE BEFORE THE 29TH ACMM, BANGALORE.

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION,   THIS    DAY,   THROUGH    VIDEO
CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes

notice for respondent-State. Sri. M.Y. Srinivasan,

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing further

proceedings in Crime No.115/2021 registered by

Viveknagar Police Station, Bangalore pending on the

XXIX Additional CMM Court, Mayohall, Bangalore for

the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 376,

323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for

the petitioner and learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent - State and Sri. M.Y.

Srinivasan, learned counsel for respondent No.2.and

perused the records.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on the

complaint filed by Respondent No.2, the police have

registered a case alleging that respondent No.2 and the

petitioner fell in love and decided to marry. Under the

guise of marriage, the petitioner and respondent No.2

developed intimacy and they had sexual affairs, but

later the petitioner refused to marry her. Therefore,

the complaint came to be filed. After registering the

case in Crime.No.115/2021, the police trying to arrest

the petitioner and accordingly, he obtained anticipatory

bail from the Court. Now, the petitioner and

respondent No.2 have filed a Joint Compromise

Application under Section 320(2) read with Section 482

of Cr.P.C. They also filed a joint affidavit to compound

the offences and decided to resile from marriage

proporsal.

5. The parties appeared through video

conferencing, along with their respective counsel.

Respondent No.2 has no objection. Their submission

as well as the affidavit are placed on record. Though

there is a serious allegation against the petitioner in

respect of an offence under Section 376 of the IPC,

looking into the case of the prosecution, the accused

and the victim are major persons and both have

developed intimacy. They had previously decided to

marry, and subsequently, the petitioner resiled for their

marriage. Therefore, a complaint came to be filed.

6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

Crl.P.No.748/2020 in the case of Vishal

Makkannanavar and the State of Karnataka and

another dealt with a similar case and quashed the

criminal proceedings for the offences punishable under

Sections 376, 420 and 506 of IPC. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court has also held in the case of Gian Singh

Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012)

10 SCC 303 where the parties have settled their

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

Court can invoke the provision under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C and compound the offence.

7. In view of the above submissions, joint

affidavit and judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and a

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, I am of the view that,

the parties are allowed to compound the offences,

though the alleged offences do not affect the public

interest at large. Therefore, the petition is required to

be allowed. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed.

All further proceedings in Crime No.115/2021

registered by Viveknagar Police Station, Bangalore

pending on the XXIX Additional CMM Court, Mayohall,

Bangalore are hereby quashed.

In view of disposal of the main petition,

IA.No.1/2022 does not survive for consideration.

Hence, it is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KTY