IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO.9879/2017 BETWEEN 1. PRASHANTH PRABHU, S/O MADHAVARAYA PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O 5-7-674/3 SAMRUDDHI, DR.GIRIDHAR RAO LANE, KODIALBAIL, MANGALURU - 575 003 2. T.ARAVIND PAI, S/O SARVOTHAMA PAI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O SRINIVAS NIVAS, GOWRIMATT STREET, MANGALURU - 575 001. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DINESH KUMAR K. RAO, ADV. FOR SRI. R. B. DESHPANDE, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANGALURU SOUTH, POLICE STATION, MANGALURU - 575 001.
(REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001.) 2. JOHN KUVELLO, S/O LATE THOMAS KUVELLO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O KUVELLO GARDEN, DEREBAIL, KALAVAI, KOTTARA, MANGALURU CITY MANGALURU - 575 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SPP-II FOR SMT. POOJA KATTIMANI, ADV. FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.28/2017 OF MANGALURU SOUTH POLICE STATION, MANGALURU CITY, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, MANGALURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Smt. Pooja Kattimani, learned counsel files vakalath for respondent No.2.
2. Petitioners and their counsel are present before the court. The respondent No.2 – defacto complainant and his counsel is also present before the court. The petitioners and respondent No.2 have compromised the matter by filing an application u/s.320(8) of Cr.P.C. for compounding, along with an affidavit of the second respondent before the court.
3. It is seen from the records that there are allegations against Accused Nos.1, 4 to 7 who have joined their hands together to concoct a forged Power of Attorney, as if it is executed by the original owner of the property bearing Survey No.710/1P1 to the extent of 37 cents situated at Attavara village, Mangaluru, which belonged to a lady by name Mrs.Regina Evalin Fernandes, who has executed the Power of Attorney in favour of the second respondent herein.
4. It is the allegation that the petitioners herein are the bonafide agreement holders who have agreed to purchase the said land from accused No.1 and entered into an agreement in this regard with accused No.1. There is no specific allegations as to how these persons have committed any offence in forging the said Power of Attorney by accused No.1.
5. Under the above said circumstances, after hearing both the parties and the learned Addl. SPP-II who submit that it will not have any impact on the merits of the case so far as accused Nos.1, 4 to 7 are concerned because the petitioners came into picture subsequent to the alleged forging of the Power of Attorney by Accused No.1 with the help of A4 to A7. Hence, I do not find any strong reasons to reject the petition. The police have registered a Crime No.28/2017 of Mangaluru South Police Station for the offence punishable under section 406, 468, 420 read with Section 149 of IPC. The said offences are not punishable either with death or life imprisonment.
6. It is worth to note here a decision rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein the Apex Court has held thus:-
“Power of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from power of a criminal court of compounding offences under S. 320 - Cases where power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised where the parties have settled their dispute, held, depends on facts and circumstances of each case - Before exercise of inherent quashment power under S.482, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact.
–Thus, held, heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants while working in their capacity as public servants, cannot be quashed even though victim or victim's family and offender have settled the dispute - Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.”
The defacto complainant – second respondent, who is present before the court has specifically stated that there is no role so far as these petitioners are concerned. Hence, in my opinion, as this case also falls under the category of the cases mentioned in the above cited decision, the application along with an affidavit filed by the petitioners and the second respondent u/s.320(8) of Cr.P.C. deserves to be accepted.
7. Heard the owner of the property Mrs.Regina Evalin Fernandes, who is also present before the court.
She submits that she has executed General Power of Attorney only in favour of respondent No.2.
In view of the submission made and the facts and circumstances of the case and also the decidion cited supra, the petition is allowed. Consequently, all further proceedings in Crime No.28/2017 of Mangaluru South Police Station pending on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM Court, Mangalulru, in so far as these petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*