IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.252/2019 BETWEEN:
Sri. B.A. JAGADEESH S/O LATE B.K. APPAJI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT RANGE FOREST OFFICE MAKUTTA RANGE VIRAJPET TALUK NATIVE OF BALAGUNDA VILLAGE BAJEGUNDI POST SOMAVARPET TALUK PIN-571236.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI.RAHUL RAI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH VIRAJPET RURAL POLICE STATION, KODAGU DISTRICT REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. H.B. UMESH S/O BETTAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS DEPUTY RFO MAKUTTA RANGE VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT PIN 571218.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. DINESH KUMAR K, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P..C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL. CASE NO.44/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KODAGU, MADIKERI (SITTING AT VIRAJPET) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 504, 506, 323, 353 AND SECTION 3(1)(x) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT OF 1989 AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings pending in Spl.Case No.44/2016 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri (Sitting at Virajpet) registered by Virajpet Rural Police Station against him for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 323, 353 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (for short SC/ST (POA) Act).
2. Second respondent herein filed a complaint before Virajpet Rural Police Station against petitioner alleging that petitioner-accused under the influence of alcohol on 12.06.2016 at @ 8.00 p.m. had physically assaulted him and abused him in foul language by using his caste name and also threatened him with dire consequences. The complaint came to be registered in Crime.No.108/2016 against petitioner and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the aforesaid offences, which is now pending in Spl.Case No.44/2016.
3. Learned Advocates appearing for parties have filed a Joint Memo enclosing the affidavits of petitioner and second respondent stating thereunder that they have settled their dispute by compounding the offences and have compromised the dispute on the advice of elders, friends, well wishers and they have agreed for quashing of the proceedings pending in Special Case No.44/2016.
4. Petitioner and second respondent are present before Court and reiterates the contents of Joint Memo. They submit that out of their own free will, volition and without any force, threat or coercion, they have affixed their signatures to the Joint Memo. A memo has been filed enclosing the photocopies of the identity cards of parties issued by the statutory authorities to establish their identities and in token of having identified the parties present before Court, learned Advocates have also affixed their signatures to the Joint Memo.
5. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that offences under SC/ST (POA) Act, which is a serious offence, cannot be quashed. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.5700/2016 (SRI. SATISH P AND ANOTHER VS. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAJGOPAL NAGAR POLICE STATION AND ANOTHER) disposed of on 07.09.2016 relying upon GIAN SINGH’s has observed that there is no indication that cases punishable under SC/ST (POA) Act, cannot be quashed at all. In fact, Hon’ble Apex Court in GIAN SINGH’s case has observed that depending upon the nature of allegations, facts of the case, seriousness of the offences and in order to put an end to the litigation and dispute between the parties, Court can exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
6. In GIAN SINGH’s case Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down guidelines as to the cases in which Court can quash the proceedings and it has been observed that if essentially the dispute is private or personal in nature and parties have resolved such dispute, High Court can quash the proceedings. It is in these circumstances, facts on hand will have to be examined to find out whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue the proceedings and continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. In other words, ultimate result would be to secure the ends of justice. Even if the proceedings are allowed to be continued, it will also be taken note of by this Court whether ends of justice would be met in quashing the proceedings, on account of dispute being private in nature between the parties, whether society at large would be affected by quashing of the proceedings. If answer is in the affirmative, then recourse can be taken to quash the proceedings.
7. In the light of above stated principles, it is noticed from the allegation made in the complaint that some of the offences are not compoundable in nature like Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act is concerned. Being on par with the allegation made involving provisions of Indian Penal Code and the fact that second respondent belonging to scheduled caste, special provision has been invoked.
8. In the light of parties having filed a Joint Memo before this Court and also having stated that they have compromised the matter on account of intervention of friends, well wishers and they being the officials working in the same department (Forest Department), if Joint Memo is not accepted as sought for, it would ultimately result in complainant not supporting the case of prosecution and thereby resulting in trial being an empty formality. In such an event, the case of prosecution would fail and conducting of trial would be an exercise in futility.
9. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the considered view that prayer sought for in the Joint Memo for quashing of the proceedings requires to be accepted and also in the special circumstances narrated hereinabove. It is also made clear that it should not be treated as a precedent, whereby Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act has been invoked since it depends on facts and circumstances of each case and gravity of the offence based on the nature of allegation made in the complaint. Thus, if all these aspects are taken into consideration, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings. Under these circumstances, Joint Memo filed by parties is hereby accepted.
10. As a social measure, appropriate Government is said to have extended monetary benefits to the victims of purported offences alleged against them on the basis of FIR and charge sheet being filed at different stages. It is reported by second respondent, who is present before Court that, in all he has received a sum of Rs.23,000/- from the State, which he undertakes to re-deposit to the State and he has tendered two demand drafts bearing Nos. 326803 and 326804 dated 25.01.2019 drawn on The Karnataka State Co-op. Apex Bank Ltd., M.S. Building Branch, Bengaluru, infavour of the Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Bengaluru. Second respondent shall handover the said demand drafts to the payee, who shall receive the same and issue receipt/acknowledgement to second respondent for having received the said amount.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in Special Case No.44/2016 registered by Virajpet Rural Police Station, Kodagu District (Crime No.108/2016) against petitioners in respect of the offences punishable Sections 504, 506, 323, 353 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 are hereby quashed.
(iii) Petitioner is acquitted of the said offences.
SD/- JUDGE RU