Criminal Petition No. 2047 of 2019 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16704 CRL.P No. 2047 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2047 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. VINOD DASAN @ DASAN, S/O D.JAYARAJ, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION EX-SERVICE MEN, R/AT T.P. NO 1000, A.K. COLONY, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD CROSS, FRAZER TOWN POST, D.J. HALLI, BANGALORE - 560 005. 2. SHEKHARAN V @ SHEKHARAN V ESEGARAN, S/O LATE VELI KANNAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS NO.08, DODDANNA NAGAR, KAVAL BYRASANDRA, D.J. HALLI, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU CITY, BANGALORE - 560 032.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. B.T. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BANASWADI POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. DOO WOONG CHAY S/O WAN JUNE, Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16704 CRL.P No. 2047 of 2019 RESIDING AT FLAT NO.101-8, CLAVISION APARTMENT, KEERTHI LAYOUT, KAMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 084. (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. T. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.60151/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE XI A.C.M.M., MAYO HALL, BANGALORE AND QUASH THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE TAKEN FOR OFFENCES U/S 448, 324, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC DATED 14.12.2018 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioners are seeking to quash the proceedings in CC.No.60151/2018 pending before the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Mayo Hall, Bangalore and to quash the order dated 14.12.2018, taking cognizance for offences punishable under Section 448, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16704 CRL.P No. 2047 of 2019 2. An application is filed under Section 320(1) read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, signed by the parties and the learned advocates appearing for them, the application reads as under: The 2nd Respondent has lodged the complaint "1. against the petitioner the same has been set up for prosecution in CC.No.60151/2018 pending before XI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Bengaluru City at Mayohall Bengaluru. Now the intervention of the of well wishes and 2. family members, the matter was discussed and settled between the parties. The Parties have arrived settlement amongst themselves. It is agreed in view of understanding arrived the 2nd respondent has no objection to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioners. 3. The petitioners and respondent no.2 do not have any claims or allegations against each other. Since the matter for a is discussed and amicably arrived compromise between them. Both the parties have jointly filed this application 4. for seeking compounding the offence and quashing of proceedings pending before the Learned XI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bengaluru." 3. In Narinder Singh and Others V. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16704 CRL.P No. 2047 of 2019 exercising its power under Section 482 of the code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with a direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. 4. Paragraph Nos.29.1 to 29.5 are relevant to be extracted hereunder: "29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve 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. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16704 CRL.P No. 2047 of 2019 been committed under special statute 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. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil those arising out of character, particularly commercial of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. transactions arising out or 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases." 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case and nature of offence alleged against the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that the offences alleged are not heinous or serious offences, on the other hand it is purely private in nature. 6. The parties have settled the matter between themselves. In view of the settlement between the parties, wherein respondent No.2/defacto complainant who is present before the Court having signed the application and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16704 CRL.P No. 2047 of 2019 presented to the Court that he is not interested in continuing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners and in view of the compromise entered, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. The ends of justice would be met by quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. Hence, the following:
Decision
ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The entire proceedings pending against the petitioners in CC.No.60151/2018 pending before the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bangalore is quashed. iii. Interlocutory application is allowed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13