IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2057/2019 BETWEEN:
ABDUL JABBAR @ JABBAR BARAMELU S/O BAVA AMASE AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O # 1-152/1, KARAVELU HOUSE, 34, NEKKILADY VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA – 575 203.
(BY SRI. ABDUL ANSAR P., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE BY UPPINANGADY POLICE STATION REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SIRAJ S/O ISUBU AGED 31 YEARS R/O 1-174, KARVELU HOUSE 34-NEKKILADY VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 575 203.
3. ABDUL GAFFAR S/O ISUBU AGED 35 YEARS ... PETITIONER R/O 1-174, KARVELU HOUSE 34-NEKKILADY VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 575 203.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY UPPINANGADY POLICE IN C.C.NO.194/2018 AND NUMBERED AS S.C.NO.5001/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 307 OF IPC, BY RESPONDENT NO.1 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, PUTTUR AT DAKSHINA KANNADA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.14 in S.C.No.5001/2019 pending on the file of V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, is before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.
2. This matter was listed on 08.04.2019 and on the said date petitioner as well as respondent No.2 – complainant had filed a joint affidavit. After placing the same on record, following order came to be passed:
“Joint affidavit of petitioner and respondent-2 (complainant) is also filed. That apart, respondent-2 has independently filed an affidavit reiterating the contents of joint affidavit along with vakalathnama of Sri Ambarish, learned counsel. Same is placed on record.
Respondent-2 – complainant is present before Court. He submits that voluntarily he has executed the affidavit without any force, threat or coercion.
In the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH vs LAXMI NARAYAN & OTHERS rendered in Criminal Appeal No.350/2019, this matter is ordered to be listed for hearing on 09.04.2019.”
3. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH vs. LAXMI NARAYAN AND OTHERS rendered in Criminal Appeal No.349/2019 has held that power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings for non compoundable offence can be exercised by the High Court where cases overwhelmingly and predominantly having civil character particularly those arising out of commercial transaction or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved entire dispute amongst themselves continuation of such proceedings would not be appropriate. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment that such power not to be exercised in such of those cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and they would be having serious impact on the society and it was also observed that offence under Section 307 of IPC and the Arms Act would fall under the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore, has to be treated as crime against society, and therefore, criminal proceedings for the offences under Section 307 IPC and/or Arms Act, which has a serious impact on the society, cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground of parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves. It is further held that mere mentioning of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or charge sheet High Court need not rest on the same and it would be open to High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC.
4. Keeping the above referred authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court in mind when the facts on hand are examined it would clearly indicate that charge sheet in question, which has been filed, is an off shoot of complaint lodged by second respondent on 30.03.2014 alleging that when he along with third respondent was travelling to Salmara, Puttur from Uppinangady and when they had reached Nekkilady Village petitioner including 13 other accused had arrived in a Maruthi Suzuki Omni Van and Maruthi 800 car and blocked two wheeler of respondent and pushed him down and accused-Rahiman was heading towards complainant’s brother respondent No.2 herein to assault him with a sickle and accused No.1 along with accused No.3 assaulted Gaffar-brother of complainant and respondent No.3 herein with sickle and all other accused were provoking him to kill the complainant and ran away from the spot on seeing one Sri.Haris and Zakir were arriving in a motorcycle at that spot. On the basis of said complaint FIR in Crime No.89/2014 for the aforesaid offences came to be registered and after investigation charge sheet has been filed for the said offences.
5. Complainant’s statement which has been produced along with the petition when perused would clearly indicate that there is no overt act committed by the petitioner herein. Even according to complainant petitioner was only instigating accused Nos.1 and 3. Thus, in the event of prosecution being permitted to continue for being taken to its logical end, the uncontroverted charge sheet material even if accepted, would not lead to conviction of accused for the simple reason that, allegation made by the complainant or other witnesses whom the Investigating Officer has examined, does not suggest about any overt act on the part of petitioner-accused so as to attract Section 307 of IPC. Hence, in the facts obtained in the present case, this Court is of the considered view that Section 307 IPC invoked by the prosecution, would no come in the way of petitioner and second respondent herein getting offences compounded namely, accepting the Joint Affidavit filed by them.
6. In the light of aforestated facts as well as complainant having admitted before this Court on 08.04.2019 that he has executed said Joint Affidavit voluntarily without any force, threat or coercion, this Court is of the considered view that same deserves to be accepted and other offences alleged against petitioner being non compoundable. In the light of fact that Joint Affidavit has been filed and second respondent having admitted that there are no other allegations made by him against petitioner (accused No.14), this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against petitioner would not call for.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending against petitioner in S.C.No.5001/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 307 of IPC on the file of V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, is hereby quashed and petitioner is acquitted of aforesaid offences.
SD/- JUDGE DR