IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.401 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1. SIDDARAMU B R S/O R RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 2. SMT SUNANDHAMMA W/O SIDDARAMU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 3. RAVISHANKAR S/O SIDDARAMU B R AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 4. B S CHANDRA SHEKARA S/O SIDDARAMU AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 5. SHASHIKIRAN S/O SIDDARAMU AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 6. VEDAVATHI D/O SIDDARAMU AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT BETTAHALLI VILLGE KASABA HOBLI, MONDIGERE POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE 562 111 (BY SRI: VISHNUMURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SANJAYNAGAR P S R/BY BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE 560 001 2. KEMPARAJU S/O LATE PUTTAIAH NO.18/11, NISARGA HOUSE NELAGEDHARAHALLI NAGASANDRA POST BANGALORE 560073 (BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1;
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS SRI: T.SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT; R2-KEMPARAJU-PRESENT, PARTY-IN-PERSON) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETRS. IN CRIME NO.360/13 OF SANJAYANAGAR P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Respondent No.2 is present in person and produces the affidavit duly sworn by him stating that his counsel is not attending before the Court and therefore he be permitted to engage another counsel.
2. Having regard to the facts sworn in the affidavit, respondent No.2 is permitted to conduct the proceedings in person.
3. A joint memo is filed under Section 320(2) (6) of Cr.P.C. duly signed by petitioner No.1 and his counsel and respondent No.2-party in person. In the joint memo, it is stated that the dispute between respondent No.2 and the petitioners is settled out of Court and respondent No.2 has withdrawn all the allegations made against the petitioners leading to registration of the above case. Respondent No.2 submits that dispute between the parties arose with regard to enforcement of terms of agreement of sale, but now the parties have mutually settled their dispute and in view of the said settlement, he has withdrawn all the allegations made against the petitioners. Submissions made by respondent No.2 is placed on record. The joint memo filed by the parties is accepted. In view of the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties, the parties are permitted to compound the offences.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.360/2013 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 120B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code is quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-