IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1126/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. ABDUL HAFEEZ @ AJAM S/O. SRI. ABDUL KAHDER AGEDA BOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT 10, H.K.S.S. MANJIL, SUSHEEL ROAD, BANGALORE-560002 (BY SRI.SATISH V, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY S.H.O., KALASIPALYA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY.
REP. BY THE LEARNED SPP, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU-560 001 2. SRI.SYED REHAMAN S/O.SRI.SYED SABIR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.C-2, SUSHEELA ROAD, 3RD CROSS, DODDAMAVALLI, BANGALORE-560 002 ...PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.RACHAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI.M.V.PARAMESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.13993/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner who is the complainant has sought for quashing of the proceedings initiated by him against second respondent-accused, which is now pending in C.C.No.13993/2013 on the file of VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. On 21.02.2013 petitioner lodged a complaint with first respondent police alleging that a quarrel had taken place between his family members and family members of Syed Mahir relating to complainant’s daughter’s matter, which had resulted in complainant filing a private complaint before VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and being enraged Syed Mahir and his brothers were always scolding them. It is further alleged that at about 1.15 p.m. said Syed Mahir, his brothers and associates including second respondent herein had assaulted complainant with a cricket bat for having lodged a complaint against Syed Mahir and others and on account of such assault, he had sustained injuries all over the body. Hence, he sought for suitable action being taken against accused. Said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.43/2013 and after investigation charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.13993/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 r/w 34 of IPC. It is also stated that second respondent and his brother had filed complaint against petitioner and his brother as also his father, which was registered and after investigation charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.2970/2013 pending on the file of VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Section 341, 323 and 506 of IPC and said dispute came to be compromised and the complaint came to be withdrawn before Lok Adalath by order dated 06.01.2013-Annexure-D. It is also stated that though petitioner wanted to withdraw the complaint filed by him against respondent-accused, on account of offence alleged against him being registered under Section 324 of IPC, which is compoundable and in the light of bar contained under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., he could not withdraw the same and seeking leave of the Court to compound the offence and for withdrawing the proceedings initiated by him, since they have already withdrawn the case against the respondent-accused before Lok Adalath, he prays for quashing the present proceedings.
3. I have heard the arguments of Sri. Satish V, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.M.V.Parmeshwarappa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of second respondent-accused and Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for first respondent-State. Perused the records.
4. Perusal of records would disclose that it is a case of complaint and counter complaint. Insofar as complaint which had been filed by second respondent against petitioner which was pending in C.C.No.2970/2013 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 506 of IPC has been compromised between the parties and reported before Lok Adalath. In the instant case, it has been alleged by the prosecution that accused has caused injuries to the complainant and has pressed into service Section 324 of IPC. Charge sheet material do not disclose about any weapon having been used that too dangerous weapon and even if prosecution is taken to its logical end it would not lead to conviction of accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of further proceedings would not be just and proper and it is liable to be quashed.
5. Petitioner and complainant are present before Court and submit that they have amicably settled their dispute before the Lok Adalath by entering into a compromise petition. Petitioner–complainant present before Court submits that out of his own free will and volition, without any threat, force or coercion he has entered into compromise petition and as such he is intending to withdraw the complaint filed by him against first respondent-accused. To establish his identity photocopy of the identity card issued by the statutory authority is produced along with memo.
6. In the light of compromise entered into between parties before Lok Adalath and keeping in mind the principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of further proceedings against second respondent would not sub- serve 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.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending against second respondent/accused in C.C.No.13993/2013 on the file of VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC, is hereby quashed and second respondent is acquitted of the said offences.
SD/- JUDGE DR