IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1533/2019 BETWEEN:
Sourabha W/o Sujeet S Pillai Aged about 31 years R/at No.B.304 Skyline Apartment Desoza Nagar BSK 3rd Stage Bangalore City – 560 085. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Basavaraju T.A., Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka By Girinagara Police Station, Bengaluru City (Police Sub-Inspector) High Court of Karnataka At Bengaluru – 560 001.
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor 2. Smt. Renuka D.J.
W/o Late Doreswamy K Aged about 57 years Bank employee R/at No.B.304 Skyline Apartment Desoza Nagar, Hosakerehalli BSK 3rd Stage Bangalore City – 560 085. ... Respondents (By Sri. S. Rachaiah, HCGP for R-1) This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in Cr.No.273/2017 registered by Girinagara Police Station, Bangalore City for the offence P/U/S/ 307 r/w 34 of IPC which is pending on the file of the Hon’ble LVI ACMM in C.C.No.29440/2018 at Bangalore city and etc.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner who has been arraigned as accused No.1 in C.C.No.29440/2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC pending on the file of 46th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.
2. Respondent No.2 is de-facto complainant who is none other than mother of petitioner. It is the grievance of complainant that at no point of time petitioner (her daughter) had stayed with her and yet on 09.10.2017 she along with her husband and one Arun P, Mohan, cousin brother of her son-in-law, had stayed over night in her house and at about 12.30 p.m., when she was sleeping, her son-in-law assisted by Arun P. Mohan and also her daughter attempted to smother her by using a pillow and at that point of time she raised hue and cry and her son Sagar arrived at the scene and immediately intimated to police. She was further alleged that she was shifted to hospital for treatment. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed for said offence.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that complainant does not intend to prosecute the complaint against her daughter namely petitioner and as such she wants to withdraw the allegation made against her daughter.
4. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in Crl. A.No.349/2019 disposed of on 05.03.2019 has held that only those non- compoundable offences which are private in nature and do not have any serious impact on the society, Court would be empowered to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 for quashing such proceedings. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court after examining the law on the point and other decisions of this Court, referred to hereinabove, as follows:
(i) xxxx (ii) xxxx (iii) xxxx (iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed. In exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, xxxx circumstances stated hereinabove.
5. In the light of dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when complaint and charge sheet material on hand is examined, it would leave no manner of doubt in this Court that crime alleged against petitioner including overt acts of accused is that of an attempt made by petitioners to murder the complainant. Hence, this Court is of considered view that offence alleged against petitioner being of heinous nature and same being a crime against the society, by consent it cannot be allowed to be settled or compromised and if such settlement is accepted, it would send a wrong signal in the society. The circumstances under such settlement arrived also would not be subject matter of scrutiny by this Court. Under these circumstances this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit and appropriate case to quash the proceedings.
Hence petition stands dismissed. Trial Court shall expedite the trial.
SD/- JUDGE SN