IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6255/2018 A/W CRIMINAL PETITIO NO.6254/2018 CRL.P.NO.6255/2018: BETWEEN:
MR. GURURAJ L N @ GURUMURTHY S/O. NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.44, LAKSHMI NILAYA, 6TH CROSS, SIDDESHWARA LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA, BANGALORE-562 114 (BY SRI.NARENDRA S, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560001 2. MR. KIRAN S/O.BILIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT THARAMANA KATTE VILLAGE, KAUDLE POST, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.10/2015 REGISTERED BY TAVAREKERE POLICE AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND C.J.M. COURT, MAGADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.2) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND B.
CRL.P.NO.6254/2018 BETWEEN:
MR. GURURAJ L N @ GURUMURTHY S/O. NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.44, LAKSHMI NILAYA, 6TH CROSS, SIDDESHWARA LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA, BANGALORE-562 114 (BY SRI.NARENDRA S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA KENGERI POLICE STATION ... PETITIONER REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560001 2. MR. MAHESH S/O.LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.99, 1ST MAIN, PAPAIAH LAYOUT, R.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560098 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. GIRISH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.10/2015 REGISTERED BY TAVAREKERE POLICE AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND C.J.M. COURT, MAGADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.2) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND B.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R These two petitions have been filed for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.17590/2017 registered by Kengeri Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 34, 419, 420 of IPC pending on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and proceedings in Crime No.0010/2015 registered by Tavarekere Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 34 of IPC pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM, Magadi, Ramanagara District.
2. I have heard the arguments of Sri.S.Narendra, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.M.K.Girish and Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Advocates appearing for complainants in these two petitions.
3. Joint memos have been filed in both the petitions whereunder it is stated that alleged dispute between complainants and accused has been settled as morefully stated in the joint memos and as such, complainants do not intend to prosecute their complaints, which have been filed by them. Terms of settlement agreed to between the parties reads as under:
IN CRL.P.NO.6255/2018 “5. In view of the aforesaid registered agreement to sell executed by the father of the petitioner herein and in view of the undertaking given by the father of the Petitioner as well as the petitioner that as per the terms of the aforesaid registered agreement to sell dated 22.01.2018, sale-deed would be executed in favour of the 2nd Respondent, the parties have reached a settlement as per the following terms.
(a) In view of the fact that the father of the Petitioner herein i.e. Sri. L. Narasimha Murthy has executed a registered agreement to sell dated 22- 01-2018 agreeing to execute sale deed in respect of land measuring 10 guntas out of 3 acres 26 guntas situated at A.K.Kaval Village, Gulur Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and District in favour of the 2nd Respondent herein, the 2nd Respondent has no objection to allow the above petition and quash the impugned proceeding pending in Crime No.10/2015 of the first Respondent Police on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM Court, Magadi, Ramanagara District & XIII A.C.M.M., Bangalore in C.C.No.26799/2015.
(b) The Petitioner / Accused No.2 and his father Sri. L.Narasimha Murthy hereby agree to complete the sale transaction which is the subject matter of the registered agreement to sell dated 22-01-2018 with a period of 20 days from the date of acceptance of the present settlement by this Hon’ble Court.
(c) The Petitioner/Accused No.2 & his father Sri. L.Narasimha Murthy hereby further agree that in the event of failure on the part of the father of the Petitioner i.e., Sri. L. Narasimha Murthy in executing the registered sale deed within a period of 20 days from the date of acceptance of compromise before this Hon’ble Court, the present settlement be treated as decree, and the 2nd Respondent would be at liberty to execute the same in getting the sale deed for the said property registered in his name through the Court.
(d) On the date of execution of the registered sale deed as per the terms of this joint memo, the 2nd Respondent / complainant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the father of the Petitioner herein who has agreed to accept the same towards additional sale consideration apart from the amount of Rs. 4,75,000/- which has already been received by the Petitioner herein under the registered sale deed dated 09-10- 2014.
(e) The sale consideration of Rs.4,75,000/- which has been already received by the petitioner herein under the above referred registered deed dated 09-10-2014, as agreed to be adjusted by the Petitioner & his father Shri. L. Narasimha Murthy as sale consideration towards registered agreement to sell dated 22-01-2018.
(f) The Petitioner herein agrees that in the event of the father of the Petitioner, Shri. L. Narasimha Murthy failing to complete the sale transaction as aforesaid by executing registered sale deed, apart from clause C mentioned above, it is agreed that the impugned proceedings in Crime No.10/2015 of the first Respondent police on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM Court, Magadi, Ramanagara District, would revive and the petitioner herein would face the charges in the said case as accused.”
IN CRL.P.NO.6254/2018 “5. In view of the aforesaid registered agreement to sell executed by the father of the petitioner herein and in view of the undertaking given by the father of the petitioner as well as the petitioner that as per the terms of the aforesaid registered agreement to sell dated 22- 01-2018, sale-deed would be executed in favour of the 2nd respondent, the parties have reached a settlement as per the following terms:-
(a) In view of the fact that the father of the petitioner herein i.e., L.Narasimha Murthy has executed a registered agreement to sell-dated 22-01-2018 agreeing to execute sale-deed in respect of land measuring 30 guntas out of 3 acres 26 guntas situated in old Survey No.304, new Survey No.304/1 at A.K.Kaval Village, Guluru Hobli, Tumkur Taluk & District in favour of the petitioner herein, the 2nd respondent has no objection to allow the above petition and quash the impugned proceedings pending in C.C.No.17590/2017 on the file of III ACMM, Bengaluru City, Bengaluru as against the petitioner/Accused No.2.
(b) The petitioner / Accused No.2 and his father Sh. L. Narasimha Murthy hereby agree to complete the sale transaction which is the subject matter of registered agreement to sell dated 22- 01-2018 within a period of 20 days from the date of acceptance of the present settlement by this Hon’ble Court.
(c) The petitioner/accused No.2 & his father Sh. L. Narasimha Murthy hereby further agree that in the event of failure on the part of the father of the petitioner i.e., Sh. L. Narasimha Murthy in executing the registered sale-deed within a period of 20 days from the date of acceptance of compromise before this Hon’ble Court, the present settlement be treated as decree, and the 2nd respondent would be at liberty to execute the same in getting the sale- deed for the said property registered in his name through the Court.
(d) On the date of execution of the registered sale-deed as per the terms of this joint memo, the 2nd respondent / original complainant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- to the father of the petitioner herein who has agreed to accept the same towards additional sale consideration apart from the amount of Rs.9,75,000/- which has already been received by the petitioner herein under the above referred registered deed dated 23.06.2014.
(e) The sale consideration of Rs.9,75,000/- which has already been received by the petitioner herein under the above referred registered deed dated 23-06-2014, as agreed to be adjusted by the petitioner & his father Sh. L. Narasimha Murthy as sale consideration towards registered agreement to sell dated 22-01-2018.
(f) The petitioner herein agrees that in the event of the father of the petitioner, Sh. L. Narasimha Murthy failing to complete the sale transaction as aforesaid by executing registered sale-deed, apart from clause C mentioned above, it is agreed that the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.17590/2017 on the file of III ACMM, Bengaluru City, Bengaluru would revive and the petitioner herein would face the charges in the said case as accused.”
4. Parties are present before Court and they have reiterated the contents of joint memos. Complainants submit that out of their own free will and volition, without any force, threat or coercion they have affixed their signatures to the joint memos. To establish their identities photocopies of identity cards issued by the statutory authority is produced along with the joint memos. In token of having identified the parties present before Court, learned Advocates have also affixed their signatures to the joint memos.
5. In the light of aforestated facts and taking into consideration that dispute in the instant case also having a civil flavour and disputes having been resolved amongst them amicably, continuation of proceedings would not sub-serve the ends of justice or in other words, it would be an abuse of process of law, inasmuch as, even if the complaints are taken to its logical end, it would not end in conviction of accused person particularly when complainants themselves do not intend to prosecute their complaints, which they have filed against the petitioner. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that joint memos deserves to be accepted and proceedings pending against petitioner deserves to be quashed.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petitions are hereby allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.17590/2017 registered by Kengeri Police Station against petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 34, 419, 420 of IPC pending on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and Crime No.0010/2015 registered by Tavarekere Police Station against petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 34 of IPC pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM, Magadi, Ramanagara District, are hereby quashed.
(iii) Petitioner is acquitted of the above said offences.
SD/- JUDGE DR