IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8240/2018 BETWEEN S SRINIVAS S/O LATE P SUGGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O NO.1235, SUMUKHA 11TH MAIN, 11TH B CROSS, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, II STAGE MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU-560 086 ... PETITIONER (By Sri. SHANKARAPPA S, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PEENYA P S REP BY SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU-560 001 2. UMESH S/O LATE SIDDIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NO.295 60 FEET ROAD, TALAKAVERI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 092 (By Sri.S.RACHAIAH, HCGP) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH REGISTRATION OF FIRST INFORMATION IN CR.NO.420/2018 OF PEENYA P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504,506 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(g) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner who is sole accused in Crime No.420/2018 registered by Peenya P.S for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(g) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1999 and Sections 504 and 506 of IPC is before this Court for quashing of the proceedings.
2. The gist of prosecution case is:
1st respondent-complainant had taken on rent the industrial premises at Kariobanahalli Peenya II Stage, Bengaluru from the accused on a monthly rent of Rs.75,000/- and had paid advance of Rs.11,00,000/-. It is further alleged that on complainant seeking renewal of the lease, the accused is said to have demanded advance of Rs.22,00,000/- and rent of Rs.2,25,000/- p.m., and in this regard, a dispute is said to have arisen and it is alleged by the complainant that accused had demanded complainant to vacate the premises and abused him by using name of caste of accused. Hence, jurisdictional police have registered Crime No.420/2018 against petitioner for aforesaid offences.
3. Today, learned advocates appearing for petitioner and 2nd respondent have filed a joint memo whereunder it is reported that matter has been settled between the complainant and accused, and complainant is not interested in prosecuting the complaint filed against accused. 2nd respondent- complainant has also filed an affidavit to said effect and has also stated that dispute between the parties has been amicably settled before the Civil Court in O.S.No.5465/2018.
4. Parties are present before Court. They have admitted execution of the joint memo and 2nd respondent-complainant has admitted execution of the affidavit filed by him and also the contents of joint memo and states that out of his own free will and volition, without any threat, force or coercion he has affixed his signature to the Joint Memo. To establish his identity, photocopy of the identity card issued by the statutory authority is produced along with the Joint Memo. Said memo is placed on record.
5. Petitioner is present before Court and he is identified by his learned Advocate. In token of having identified the parties present before Court, learned Advocates have also affixed their signatures to the Joint Memo.
6. In the light of aforestated facts and keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of GIAN SINGH v/s. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of further proceedings against petitioner would not sub-serve the ends of justice and it would be an abuse of process of law. Hence, this Court finds there is no impediment to grant the prayer sought for.
7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending in Crime No.420/2018 registered by Peenya P.S against petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(g) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1999 and Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, is hereby quashed and Petitioner is acquitted of the said offences.
SD/- JUDGE bnv*