Sri. Kalpakumar Jain vs State By Madanayakanahally ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9661 Kant

                              1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

            DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                             BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.1514 OF 2022

                              C/W

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.2332 OF 2022

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1514 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

SRI. KALPAKUMAR JAIN
S/O. BHARATHESH KUMAR JAIN
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
OFFICE: M.D.KALP JAIN MOTORS
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA SHOWROOM
NELAMANGALA
BENGALURLU RURAL - 562 123.

R/O. NO. 15/1, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 055.
                                                  ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUDHARSHAN L., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE BY MADANAYAKANAHALLY
       POLICE STATION, NELAMANGALA
       REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT
       BENGALURU 560 001.
                           2



2.   SRI GIRISH N.,
     S/O. LATE. NAGARAJ,
     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
     PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
     RAMANJINAPPA BUILDING
     NEAR VEERAIAH ENCLAVE
     ADARSHNAGAR MAIN ROAD
     ARISHINAKUNTE
     NELAMANGALA TALUK,
     BENGALURU - 562 123.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C.NO.7872/2021 AND IN CR.NO.330/2021 ON THE FILE OF
MADANAYAKANAHALLI P.S., AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF
LEARNED I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT NELAMANGALA
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 109, 341, 307, 304, 506, 34 OF
IPC.


IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.2332 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

SMT.CHITHRA M.B.,
W/O GIRISH N.,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/O RAMANJINAPPA BUILDING
NEAR VEERAIAH ENCLAVE
ADARSHNAGAR MAIN ROAD
ARISHINAKUNTE
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGLAURU - 562 123.
                                             ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUDHARSHAN L., ADVOCATE)
                               3




AND:

1.     STATE BY MADANAYAKANAHALLY
       POLICE STATION, NELAMANGALA
       REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT,
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     SRI.GIRISH N.,
       S/O LATE NAGARAJ
       AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
       PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
       RAMANJINAPPA BUILDING
       NEAR VEERAIAH ENCLAVE
       ADARSHAGAR MAIN ROAD
       ARISHINAKUNTE
       NELAMANGALA TALUK
       BENGLAURU - 562 123.
                                               ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE FOR R2)


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C.NO.7872/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE MADANAYAKANAHALLI
P.S., AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I ADDL.CIVIL
JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT NELAMANGALA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
120B, 109, 341, 307, 304, 506, 34 OF IPC.


     THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR REPORTING
SETTLEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                             ORDER

The petitioners who are accused Nos.1 and 6 respectively,

are before this Court calling in question the very same

proceedings in C.C.No.7872/2021 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 120B, 109, 341, 307, 304, 506, 34 of

IPC.

2. Heard Sri.Sudharshan.L., learned counsel for

petitioners, Sri.K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.Pavan Kumar.G., learned

counsel for respondent No.2.

3. An incident that occurred on 01.07.2021 results in

registration of a complaint against six accused by the second

respondent. The allegation against the accused is that they have

altogether made an attempt to kill the complainant and thus

have committed the aforesaid offences. It is not in dispute that

accused No.1 is the employer of the wife of the complainant and

accused No.6 is the wife of the complainant. The facts as

narrated in the complaint was a squabble between the husband

and the wife i.e., complainant and accused No.6 who appear to

have a dispute with regard to the complainant working under

the accused No.1. This lead to the complainant visiting the

place of work of accused No.1 and his wife, where altercations

lead to exchange of fist blows between accused Nos.2 to 5 and

the complainant. The police, after investigation, have filed a

charge sheet and the matter is pending in C.C.No.7872/2021.

The parties to the lis have now filed a joint memo along with

their respective affidavit of settlement of the dispute between

them. In the teeth of the offence being punishable under Section

307 of the IPC, whether the dispute could be accepted to be

settled is the issue in the cases at hand.

4. A Three Judge bench of the Apex Court has laid down

guidelines with regard to settlement of disputes qua the offences

which are against the Society wherein the Apex Court was

considering an offence under Section 307 of the IPC itself. The

Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v.

LAXMI NARAYAN AND OTHERS1 has held as follows:

(2019)5 SCC 688

"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non- compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307

IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

15.5 [Ed. : Para 15.5 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./22/2019 dated 3-4-2019.] . While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non- compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc."

(emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court directs the High Court before whom such

application for settlement is filed, particularly in an offence

under Section 307 of the IPC, to go beyond the very offence that

is alleged looking to the weapons used, nature of injuries

sustained, and as to whether such injuries are inflicted on the

vital/delicate parts of the body.

5. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, it

becomes necessary to look into the wound certificate, which is a

part of the investigation. The wound certificate reads as follows:

"Alleged history of assault on 1/7/2021 at 2:45 P.M. by Prabhu & others.

Injured was brought to hospital by Lokesh on 1/7/21 at 4:00 P.M.

Injuries: 1) Abrasion over left hand.

2) Pain over right arm

Opinion: Above injuries are simple in nature."

(emphasis added)

The wound certificate narrates that the injuries sustained

by the complainant are simple in nature. Therefore, the

impediment of closing the issue on a settlement between the

parties qua the offences merits consideration and acceptance.

6. It is not in dispute that in cases where the offence so

alleged was the one punishable under Section 307 of the IPC

this Court has closed the cases on account of settlement arrived

at between the parties. A Co-ordinate bench of this Court in

Crl.P.No.7864/2017 disposed on 07-10-2017 has held as

follows:

"Second respondent filed a complaint on 05.04.2017 against petitioners alleging that he had been assaulted by petitioners, abused in foul and filthy language and humiliated by addressing him by using his caste name. Said complaint came to be registered in Cr.No.54/2017 by first respondent against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment ordinance 2014).

2. Parties are present before Court namely, petitioner and complainant and they have filed a Joint Memo of compromise whereunder it is stated that they have settled their disputes amicably and complainant is not intending to prosecute the complaint lodged by him Against petitioners and intends to withdraw the allegations made against the petitioners on the ground that they are known to each other and they are neighbours and as such, they have resolved to live in peace and harmony. Second respondent who is present before Court submits that he has no objection for proceedings against petitioners being quashed. He also submits that contents of Joint Memo of compromise are true and correct and he is not interested in prosecuting the complaint lodged by him against the petitioners and he has no objection for quashing the proceedings pending against petitioners.

3. Petitioners and respondents who are present before Court are identified by their learned Advocates and to

establish their identity they have produced photocopies of identity cards issued by statutory authorities. In token of having identified the parties, respective learned Advocates have also affixed their signatures to the photocopies of identity cards issued by the statutory authorities.

4. Taking into consideration that parties have resolved their disputes and in view of the fact that complainant is not interested in prosecuting the complaint, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of further proceedings against petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose and it would only be an exercise in futility and would be abuse of process of law."

(emphasis supplied)

Further, in Crl.P.No.2385/2021 c/w Crl.P.No.2224/2021,

a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as follows:

"2. Two FIRs in Crime No.328/2019 and 329/2019 were registered by the first respondent-Police Station in relation to an incident dated 30.09.2019. The allegations are that the second respondent in Crl.P.No.2385/2021 sold his suitcase manufacturing unit to Haseeb Ravi for Rs.1,75,00,000/-. Haseeb Ravi paid Rs.50,00,000/- and did not pay the balance amount. It appears that the purchaser Haseeb Ravi started demolishing the building and at that time, the second respondent i.e., Syed Ahmed took objection for the same stating that money due to him has not been paid in full. In this connection, it appears that an altercation took place at about 8.00 p.m. on 30.09.2019. The allegations are that the petitioners in Crl.P.No.2385/2021 assaulted the second respondent and attempted on his life. Therefore, the second respondent went to the Police Station and lodged FIR in Crime No.328/2019. FIR in Crime No.329/2019 is a rival complaint.

3. Joint affidavit discloses that the parties have arrived at a mutual settlement and have withdrawn the

allegations against each other. Basically the dispute appears to be in connection with purchase of a factory premises. Though in the FIR in Crime No.328/2019, the offence under Section 307 of IPC, a non-compoundable offence has been invoked, in the facts and circumstances, it can be stated that the said offence is primarily in the background of monetary transaction. There is nothing to indicate that injuries likely to cause death were inflicted. Therefore, in terms of the joint affidavit filed by the parties, both the FIRs can be quashed. Hence I pass the following:"

Further, this Court in an identical circumstance, where the

offence alleged was one punishable under Section 307 of the

IPC, has held as follows:

"4. The terms of the Settlement reached are as follows:

"APPLICATION UNDER SECTON 482 R/W 320(8) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR COMPOUNDING.

The petitioner most humbly submits as follows:

1. It is submitted that on a complaint by respondent no.2 Manoj patel on 4/11/2020 before the Yalahanka Police Station Bengaluru, the PSI of Yalahanka Police station, Bengaluru registered a case in their Crime NO..179/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 384, 34 of IPC. Against one Palanhalli Prashanth and 3 unknown persons and the same is pending before the trial court SC.NO.819/2021 on the file of C/C LXVIII Additional city Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. It is humbly submitted that after investigation respondent no.1 filed the Charge sheet against the Petitioner and 14 others for offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B, 307, 384, 506 R/W 149 of IPC. That petitioner has been arrayed as accused no.14 in the above case. It is alleged in the charge sheet that there are cases against accused no.1, 2, 3, 8, 12, 13 and 15. It is alleged as against petitioner that at the instance of accused no.12 and 13 who had informed accused no.1 to contact accused no.9

and petitioner and when accused no.1 met them it is alleged that they informed that to collect the money from the owners of shop in their area so that accused no.1 could release his brother and another from jail and they would give protection as they are members of Rakshana Vedike and among other allegations against other accused persons charge sheet has been filed.

3. It is humbly submitted by petitioner that he is nowhere concerned to the alleged incident and petitioner denies the entire case of the prosecution. It is submitted petitioner has been implicated on the basis of voluntary statement of co- accused and further complainant submits that he has never given any statement of police in respect of involvement of present petitioner and as such he does not intend to proceed with the case as against petitioner and they have no dispute between themselves. Therefore, the complainant also stated that petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and the case against him be quashed. Under these circumstances, the Respondent no.2 does not intend to proceed with the case against the Petitioner and he voluntarily without any undue influence as decided not to proceed with criminal case against the Petitioner. That in view of the facts and circumstances Respondent no.2 does not intend to proceed with the Criminal case and prays that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to permit the parties to compound and quash the proceedings as against the Petitioner.

It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to permit Petitioner and Respondent no.2 to compound the offences and quash the Criminal Proceedings against the Petitioner in S.C.No.819/2021 (for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B, 307, 384, 506 r/w 149 of IPC pending on the file of C/C LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in the interest of justice."

5. In the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties that is accused No.14/petitioenr and complainant and also the fact that allegations made against accused is not under Section 307 IPC, as it is on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused No.1 he was implicated, I deem it appropriate to accept the application for compounding and terminate the proceedings against the petitioner alone.

7. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of LAXMI NARAYAN (supra) and other judgments rendered

by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and that of this Court,

the settlement between the parties is required to be noticed and

is quoted for the purpose of ready reference:

"The petitioner and respondent no.2 submits as

follows:

1. That it is submitted by the petitioner and respondent no.2 that petitioner was arrayed as accused no.1 in crime no.330/2021 and in C.C.no.7872/2021 which is pending on the file of learned I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Nelamangala for the offences punishable u/s 120(B), 109, 341, 307, 304, 506, 34 of IPC.

2. That being aggrieved by the chargesheet filed against the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred the above criminal petition by invoking sec.482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of the chargesheet.

3. That during the pendency of the above matter before this Hon'ble court, that upon intervention of well-wishers and friends, the dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent is amicably resolved with cordial terms. And therefore the 2nd respondent has given consent to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by withdrawing the allegations levelled against the petitioner.

4. That the 2nd respondent is not interested in prosecuting the complainant in view of the compromise with the petitioner and further has

felt that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose and it would only be an abuse of process of law.

5. That the settlement arrived between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is out of free will, there is no coercion or force, fraud or any undo influence in settling the above case.

WHEREFORE, the petitioner and 2nd respondent most humbly pray that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to permit them to compound the case and quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.no.7872/2021 on the file of I Addl.

Civil Judge and JMFC at Nelamangala in the interest of Justice."

8. In the light of the facts narrated hereinabove, the wound

certificate and the complainant making his wife as accused for

the purpose that she was working in the Company to which

accused No.1 was the Managing Director and they had a

squabble for his wife employment, I deem it appropriate to

terminate the proceedings only insofar as the petitioners i.e.,

accused Nos.1 and 6 are concerned accepting the settlement.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Petitions are disposed.

(ii) Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.7872/2021 pending

before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,

Nelamangala stand quashed qua the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 6.

As a consequence, pending applications, if any, stands

disposed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkp CT:MJ