Vinod Sharma vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 363 Kant

                            1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.2468/2020
BETWEEN

VINOD SHARMA
S/O G.L. SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO.405, 4TH FLOOR,
MOTATI MEADOWS,
NAGAVARAPALYA,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
C V RAMAN NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560093                               ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SAMARTH PRAKASH FOR ARYAN LAW, ADVOCATE
(VIDEO CONFERENCE))

AND

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
       KADUGODI POLICE STATION,
       BENGALURU-560043

2.     MR ARUN RAGHUNATH
       AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
       S/O SRI RAGHUNATH,
       R/AT 43, ARCHANA
       VINAYAKA TEMPLE STREET,
       UDHAYANAGAR,
       BENGALURU-560016
                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1
 SRI. CHANDRA MOHAN K, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VIDEO
CONFERENCE)
                                2


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED IN PCR NO.411/2019 AND THE
FIR DATED 12.10.2019 REGISTERED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT
IN CR.NO.280/2019 PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 34,120-B,
420,419,416,468,464 OF IPC (ANNEXURE A AND B) PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.

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

                          ORDER

This petition filed by the petitioner-accused No.2

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is for quashing the First

Information Report dated 12.10.2019 registered by

respondent No.1-police in Crime No.280/2019 in respect of

private complaint in PCR No.411/2019

2. Learned counsels appearing for the parties have

filed a joint compromise application under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. submitting that the parties have settled the

dispute. They have also filed an affidavit of the petitioner

and also an affidavit of Smt. Vidya Das, who is the wife of

respondent No.2 and the GPA holder of respondent No.2,

whereby respondent No.2 has empowered his wife

Smt. Vidya Das to settle the dispute and take back the

complaint in PCR No.411/2019 and the First Information

Report dated 12.10.2019 registered by respondent No.1-

police in Crime No.280/2019.

3. During the pendency of this petition, the parties

have entered into an agreement and filed a joint

compromise application. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the sale deed has already been

executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.2

and his wife, and therefore, the petitioner requests for

allowing the joint application for compromise and prays for

quashing the proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, appearing

through video conference, submits that the parties have

settled the matter and therefore, he has no objection for

quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

5. The submission of the learned counsel for the

parties is placed on record. Since the parties have settled

the dispute and the petitioner has already executed sale

deed in favour of respondent No.2 and his wife, and in

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

Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another reported

in 2012 CRI.L.J.4934, wherein, it has been held that in

cases where the parties have settled the dispute between

them, the Court can quash the proceedings and

continuation of the proceedings is abuse of process of law.

In view of the principles laid down in the case of Gian

Singh stated supra and guidelines issued therein, the

criminal proceedings against the petitioner requires to be

quashed.

6. Consequently, the petition is also allowed. The

proceedings against the petitioner in private complaint in

PCR No.411/2019 and the First Information Report dated

12.10.2019 registered by respondent No.1-police in

Crime No.280/2019 is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Cs