IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8085/2014 Between:
1. M.Venkatesh S/o Late Munivenkatappa, Aged about 69 years, 2. V.Venu S/o M.Venkatesh, Aged about 45 years, Both are residing at, No.410, 12th Cross, Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru – 560080. … Petitioners (By Sri.Praveen. C, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka by CCB Police, N.T.Pet, Bengaluru – 560002.
2. K.S.Nagendra, Aged about 60 years, Residing at B-81, Industrial Estate, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560081. ...Respondents (By Sri.Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R.1 and Sri.K.V.Thimmaiah, Advocate for R.2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings for an alleged offences punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC in C.C.No.8782/2012 against the petitioners now pending before the learned 1st ACMM, Bengaluru against the petitioners and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8782/2012 pending on the file of 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru. The said proceedings were initiated based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 herein.
2. Respondent No.2 and petitioners herein filed applications under Section 320(2) and 320(8) of Cr.P.C seeking to compound the alleged offence in C.C.No.8782/2012. However, the learned Magistrate by order dated 30.04.2014 rejected the said applications on the ground that the compromise petition is not signed by CW-4.
The trial Court is of the opinion that the signature of CW-4 was necessary as the allegation made in the complaint discloses his involvement in the alleged offences. But, on reading of the complaint on the face of it indicates that it is only the complainant who has alleged cheating by the petitioners and not CW-4. Under the said circumstances, merely because in the complaint, the role of CW-4 has been narrated, the same cannot be a reason to insist the witness to sign the compromise petition. This is not a case of either complainant or CW-4 that on account of the alleged act, CW-4 is aggrieved or that he has been cheated. Under the said circumstances, the learned Magistrate has committed an error in rejecting the petition on the purported reasoning. In the result, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.
3. Petitioner has produced the certified copy of the order sheet in C.C.No.21688/2011 between K S Instruments Private Limited/complainant vs. Sri.M.Venkatesh/accused. The order sheet dated 20.02.2014 reads as under;
“Case is called. Accused is present. Complainant is present.
Advocate of complainant is present and files a memo stating that the complainant has received the entire amount in this case. Hence full satisfaction may be entered and complaint may be closed.
Accordingly, full satisfaction is entered and complaint is closed.
Accused is set at liberty.”
4. In view of the above payment, the Joint Memo filed by the parties should be given effect to. Consequently, the proceedings pending in C.C.No.8782/2012 are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Joint Memo filed by the petitioners before the trial Court is accepted. In terms of the said Joint Memo, the proceedings pending on the file of the 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru in C.C.No.8782/2012 are quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE NBM