IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO.8999/2017 C/W CRL.P NO.9000/2017 IN CRL.P. NO.8999/2017 BETWEEN 1. HAMEED S. A., S/O ABOOBAKAR, 42 YEARS, R/ AT VADEYANAPURA VILLAGE, SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI, SOMAVARAPET TALUK, KODAGU DIST - 571 201 2. MOHEEDU @ MOHIDEEN, S/O LATE MOHAMMED, 39 YEARS, R/AT VADEYANAPURA VILLAGE, SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI, SOMAVARAPET TALUK, KODAGU DIST - 571 201 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAHADEVA R. K., ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SHANIVARASANTHE POLICE STATION, SOMAVARPET CIRCLE, KODAGU DIST -571 201 REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001 2. ABDUL KUNHE @ KUNJI, (B. K. ABDUL KUNHI), S/O LATE KUNHIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/ AT VADEYANAPURA VILLAGE, SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI, SOMAVARAPET TALUK, KODAGU DIST -571 201 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1 SRI. B. BALAKRISHNA, ADV. FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.33/2015 (IS ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.116/2013) OF SHANIVARSANTHE POLICE STATION, SOMWARPET CIRCLE, KODAGU DISTRICT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 326, 307 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 25 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI.
******* IN CRL.P. NO.9OOO/2017 BETWEEN 1. B. K. ABDUL KUNHI @ KUNJI, ABDUL KUNHI @ KUNJI, S/O KUNHAPPA, 52 YEARS, R/ AT VADEYANAPURA VILLAGE, SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI, SOMAVARAPET TALUK, KODAGU DIST -571 201 2. K. R. ROHITH, S/O RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT GEJJE HANAKODU VILLAGE, SOMAVARAPET TALUK, KODAGU DIST – 571 201. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA B., ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SHANIVARASANTHE POLICE STATION, SOMAVARAPET CIRCLE, KODAGU DIST -571 201 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SMT.NAZEEMA, W/O HAMEED, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT VADEYANAPURA VILLAGE, GOPALAPURA, SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI, SOMAVARAPET TALUK, KODAGU DIST - 571 201. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1 SRI. MAHADEVA R. K., ADV. FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.59/2015 (IS ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.117/2013) OF SHANIVARASANTHE POLICE STATION, SOMWARPET CIRCLE, KODAGU DISTRICT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 448, 427, 506(2) R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION/HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard. Perused the affidavit and the Joint Memo filed by the parties in both the petitions.
2. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.8999/2017 are arrayed as accused Nos.1 & 2 in SC No.33/2015 arising out of Crime No.116/2013 of Shanivarsanthe police for the offence punishable under sections 323, 326, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. The second respondent Abdul Kunhe @ Kunji is the complainant in the said case.
3. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.9000/2017 are arrayed as accused Nos.1 & 2 in SC No.59/2015 arising out of Crime No.117/2013 of Shanivarsanthe police for the offence punishable under sections 448, 427, 506(2) read with Section 34 of IPC. The second respondent Smt. Nazeema, wife of petitioner No.1 in CRL.P. No.8999/2017, is the complainant.
4. After committal of the case and counter cases, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the said proceedings. On the previous occasion, both the parties were present and they have filed the Joint compromise petition stating that they have compounded the offences and sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in the above said two Sessions Cases.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsels at the time of arguments that due to some mis-understanding between the parties, they have lodged complaints against each other and they are residents of the same place and they are known to each other. They have to live together in the same village in future also. Therefore, at the intervention of the elders and well- wishers and friends of the family of the petitioner and the respondent in both the cases, they have entered into a compromise.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader that though the offence punishable u/s.307 of IPC is alleged, but no such serious injury has been occurred on any vital part of the body on the injured in connection with SC No.33/2015. The learned High Court Government Pleader has also appraised this court that the weapon-revolver used for the purpose of commission of the offence is by the licence holder i.e., petitioner No.1.
7. It is worth to refer here a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court which is reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 between Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and another, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that – Even for the purpose of compounding the offence u/s.307 of IPC and quashing the proceedings, the High Court depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case can exercise such power. It is worth to refer the relevant paragraphs 22 & 23, which reads thus – “22. Thus, we find that in certain circumstances, this Court has approved the quashing of proceedings under Section 307 IPC whereas in some other cases, it is held that as the offence is serious nature such proceedings cannot be quashed. Though in each of the aforesaid cases the view taken by this Court may be justified on its own facts, at the same time this Court owes an explanation as to why two different approaches are adopted in various cases. The law declared by this Court in the form of judgments becomes binding precedent for the High Courts and the subordinate courts, to follow under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Stare decisis is the fundamental principle of judicial decision-making which requires “certainty” too in law so that in a given set of facts the course of action which law shall take is discernible and predictable. Unless that is achieved, the very doctrine of stare decisis will loose its significance. The related objective of the doctrine of stare decisis is to put a curb on the personal preferences and priors of individual Judges. In a way, it achieves equality of treatment as well, inas much as two different persons faced with similar circumstances would be given identical treatment at the hands of law. It has, therefore, support from the human sense of justice as well. The force of precedent in the law is heightened, in the words of Karl Llewellyn, by “that curious, almost universal sense of justice which urges that all men are to be treated alike in like circumstances”.
23. As there is a close relation between equality and justice, it should be clearly discernible as to how the two prosecutions under Section 307 IPC are different in nature and therefore are given different treatment. With this ideal objective in mind, we are proceeding to discuss the subject at length. It is for this reason we deem it appropriate to lay down some distinct, definite and clear guidelines which can be kept in mind by the High Courts to take a view as to under what circumstances it should accept the settlement between the parties and quash the proceedings and under what circumstances it should refrain from doing so. We make it clear that though there would be a general discussion in this behalf as well, the matter is examined in the context of the offences under Section 307 IPC.”
8. In another decision reported in 2014 AIR SCW 4319 between Yogendra Yadav Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that – “Inherent powers for quashing of the FIR lodged for the offence punishable under sections 323 and 307 of IPC which are non compoundable offences – Affidavit filed by complainant stating about filing of Compromise Petition – Also stating that appellants are neighbours and that they are living peacefully – In view of compromise, proceedings against appellants, quashed.”
Therefore, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of injuries sustained and also the status of the parties in the society and their living in a particular area, all those factors are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of quashing the proceedings and also bearing in mind the impact of such allowing the compromise by the courts.
9. As noted above, the parties are from the same village. They said that they are neighbours and due to some misunderstanding, the incident said to have been happened and now, they have compromised the matter and they are living peacefully in the village even after initiation of the proceedings. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in both the cases, the Joint Memo filed by the parties have to be accepted.
Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. In both the cases as noted above, the Joint Memo filed by the parties are hereby accepted. Consequently, the entire proceedings in SC No.33/2015 arising out of Crime No.116/2013 of Shanivarsanthe Police Station, pending on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, for the offence punishable under section 323, 326, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959; and the entire proceedings in SC No.59/2015 arising out of Crime No.117/2013 of Shanivarsanthe Police Station, pending on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, for the offence punishable under sections 448, 427, 506(2) read with Section 34 of IPC, are hereby quashed.
PL* Sd/-
JUDGE