IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K N PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7392 OF 2016 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7613 OF 2015 CRL.P No.7392/2016 BETWEEN:
R.GANESHAN S/O D.P.RAMACHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT PERIYAKOTTAI PATTI KOTTANPATTI PO SHIVAGANGAI TALUK & DIST., TAMIL NADU 635 109. ... PETITIONER (BY:SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI RAYACHOTI JAGANNATH RAO S/O NAGESHA RAO AGED 60 YRS.
2. RAYACHOTI NIRMALA W/O RAYACHOTI JAGANNATH RAO AGED 54 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1-10-72/D CHIKOTI GARDEN, BEGUM PET HYDARABAD, TELANGANA STATE PIN 500016.
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI C.N.PRAKASH S/O NARAYANAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
R/AT CHIMAKAIAHALLY VILLAGE THOKALAHALLY POST GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST PIN 562 128.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ATTIBELE POLICE STATION ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS OF TAKNG COGNIZANCE AND ISSUING NBW TO ACCUSED DATED 31.7.2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.647/2015 NOW NUMBERED AS IN NEW C.C.NO.747/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 409, 417, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC.
CRL.P No.7613/2015 BETWEEN:
SRI BHARATH JAGANNATHAN S/O LATE M.JAGANNATHAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT # H-35, AVALAPALLI, HUDCO BAGLUR ROAD, HOSUR 635 109 KIRSHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU STATE PIN 635 109. ... PETITIONER (BY:SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI RAYACHOTI JAGANNATH RAO S/O NAGESHA RAO AGED 60 YRS.
2. RAYACHOTI NIRMALA W/O RAYACHOTI JAGANNATH RAO AGED 54 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1-10-72/D CHIKOTI GARDEN, BEGUM PET HYDARABAD, PIN 500016.
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI C.N.PRAKASH S/O NARAYANAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
R/AT CHIMAKAIAHALLY VILLAGE THOKALAHALLY POST GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST-562 128.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ATTIBELE POLICE STATION ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT PIN-562 106. ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO (A) QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKNG COGNIZANCE AND ISSUING N.B.W. TO ACCUSED DATED 05.08.2015 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT ANEKAL IN C.C.NO.647/2015 UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND (B) QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 13.10.2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DISTRICT SIT AT ANEKAL IN CR.R.P.5007/2015, UNDER ANNEXURE-A-1.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner in both the cases and respondent no.1 and his previous Power of Attorney Holder by name C.N.Prakash and new Power of Attorney Holder S.B.Sudheer Rayachoti and respective counsels are present before the Court.
2. The Complainant/respondent no.1 who is personally present before the Court submits that he has cancelled the Power of Attorney executed in favour of Sri C.N.Prakash and thereafter, he has executed General Power of Attorney in favour of his own son by name S.B.Sudheer Rayachoti. The said earlier General Power of Attorney holder Sri C.N.Prakash who is an Advocate is also present before this Court. The complainant, who is present in person before the Court today, is permitted to represent the cases.
3. The petitioners and respondent nos.1 and 2 have compromised the matter. The complainant also files an affidavit stating that he has executed his General Power of Attorney in favour of his son S.B.Sudheer Rayachoti. The parties have compromised the matter and filed a compromise petition by way of Joint Memo stating that both the parties have compromised the matter and sought for quashing of the entire proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.647/2015 (New No.747/2015) pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 417, 420 read with Section 34 IPC.
4. The factual aspects are also relevant for the purpose of consideration of the compromise petition. It is alleged that on 25.03.1998, 2nd respondent herein Mr.Rayachoti Jagannath Rao along with his wife Rayachoti Nirmala have purchased site Nos.39 and 40 from the father of accused no.1 (in C.C.No.747/2015) on the assurance given by the accused that the said sites will be developed and kathas will be made over to the names of respondent no.1 and his wife. As they have not adhered to their promise, alleging breach of trust and promise, respondent nos.1 and 2 appears to have filed a complaint through their earlier Power of Attorney Holder before the police and the police after investigation filed charge sheet in the above said criminal case.
5. Now the parties are present before the Court particularly, the complainant/respondent no.2 present and his new Power of Attorney Holder is also present. They submit that the matter is essentially civil in nature between them. However, in order to get the work done, they have filed a criminal complaint against the accused. Now, they have resolved their dispute between themselves. In view of the relationship between the parties and also the entire dispute having been resolved between the petitioners and respondent nos.1 and 2, there is no legal impediment to record the compromise. Offence under Sections 417 and 420 IPC are compoundable in nature. With the permission of the Court however, Section 409 is non-compoundable in nature. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings even on the face of the compromise between the parties. Though earlier Power of Attorney holder C.N.Prakash is present before the Court, who is an advocate, he submits that respondent nos.1 and 2 have executed irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of him. Therefore, they cannot unilaterally compromise the matter. It is also submitted that respondent nos.1 and 2 have executed an agreement of sale in his favour. This clearly discloses that there is some civil dispute and misunderstanding between the earlier Power of Attorney Holder and respondent nos.1 and 2 herein. The criminal complaint though filed by the power of attorney holder, Power of Attorney holder has no legs to stand without the complainant. Therefore, when the complainant himself is present before the Court in person and says that he would like to compromise that matter with the accused persons, Power of Attorney cannot prevent the complainant from entering into such compromise. If there is any civil dispute between the earlier Power of Attorney Holder Sri C.N.Prakash and respondents 1 and 2, he has to work out his remedy available in a civil proceeding or by way of any proceeding known to law. Under the above said circumstances, such objection of the previous Power of Attorney holder cannot be countenanced.
6. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, the offence being not seriously punishable, either with death or imprisonment for life and it is purely a civil dispute between the parties i.e., the sale transaction between the parties, I am of the opinion that parties are entitled to settle the matter between themselves amicably. Hence, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings as prayed for. Hence, the following:
ORDER The joint compromise petitions are recorded. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.747/2015 (Old No.647/2015) pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal and all further proceedings therein, for the offences under Sections 409, 417 and 420 so far as the petitioners are concerned, is hereby quashed.
In view of the above said disposal of the case, impleading application filed by the erstwhile Power of Attorney is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE BRN