IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1040/2019 BETWEEN:
MR. ANIL KUMAR AGED ABPIT 41 YEARS S/O VARDARAJU RESIDING AT PROPERTY 82/1 KEREMEGULADODDI BESAGARAHALLI PO MADDUR TQ MANDYA DT - 571 419.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHENDRA GOWDA C.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY SARASWATHIPURAM POLICE STATION MYSOR CITY – 570 009 BY STATE P.P HIGH COUR BANGALORE.
2. N. GANGARAJ AKA N. GANGADHAR S/O NANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS NO.48, NEAR SHARADHADEVINAGAR CIRCLE, MYSORE CITY – 570 009.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. DINESH S. KADLAAS., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN C.C.NO.180/2015 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 465, 468, 420 AND SEC.34 OF IPC FILED BY SARASWATHIPURAM POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE III JMFC, MYSORE INITIATED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner who has been arraigned as accused in C.C.No.180/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 420 r/w 34 of IPC by Saraswathipuram Police Station pending on the file of III JMFC, Mysore, is before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.
2. The gist of complaint is: Petitioner was introduced by one Sri.Byrahanume Gowda, who informed that he had received a demand draft for `1,45,00,000/- and for renewal of same he requires `2,00,000/- and as such financial assistance was sought and accordingly, complainant had lent a sum of `1,00,000 to petitioner/accused by transferring said amount through RTGS and on seeking refund of said amount, petitioner did not pay the amount and later on complainant came to know that demand draft which was forwarded by petitioner to complainant was forged/fabricated demand draft. Hence, he sought for suitable action being taken against petitioner/accused. Said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.114/2010 for the aforesaid offences and subsequently on completion of investigation charge sheet came to be filed for the aforesaid offence in C.C.No.180/2015.
3. Today learned Advocates appearing for parties have filed a joint affidavit of petitioner and second respondent/complainant whereunder both parties are said to have entered into a settlement as per the terms set out in the joint affidavit, which reads as under:
“1. I the first deponent state that I have amicably settled the dispute with the second respondent herein by repaying the amount that I had received from him and I have entered into an agreement dated April 9, 2014.
2. I the second deponent state that by receiving a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and entering into an agreement dated April 9, 2014 I have amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner.
3. I the second deponent state that in view of the aforesaid settlement I have no objection for this Hon’ble Court allowing the subject criminal petition and as a consequence thereof quashing the criminal case bearing C.C.No.180/2015 against to the petitioner herein.”
4. Parties are present before Court and they reiterate the contents of joint affidavit and they are identified by the respective learned Advocates appearing for them. Second respondent submits that out of his own free will and volition, without any threat, force or coercion he has affixed his signature to the joint affidavit and he is not inclined to prosecute the complaint lodged by him against petitioner. To establish the identities of parties present before Court, photocopies of identity cards issued by statutory authority are produced along with memos. In token of having identified the parties present before Court, respective learned Advocates have also affixed their signatures to the joint affidavit.
5. In the light of aforestated facts and keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of further proceedings against petitioner would not sub-serve the ends of justice and it would be an abuse of process of law and as such, this Court finds there is no impediment to grant the prayer sought for.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending against petitioner in C.C.No.180/2015 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 420 r/w 34 of IPC by Saraswathipuram Police Station on the file of III JMFC, Mysore, is quashed and petitioner is acquitted of the said offences.
SD/- JUDGE DR