IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 8030/2017 BETWEEN SRI. KARTHIK, S/O CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT SOMANAHALLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DIST-572 303 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K. C., ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE BELUR POLICE STATION HASSAN DIST-573 201.
2. RACHITHA, D/O LATE PARAMESH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT PUMP HOUSE STREET, BELUR, HASSAN DIST-03 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1 SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADV. FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.11/2014 AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT HASSAN.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION A/W I.A.1/2017 THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner’s counsel present. 2nd respondent is present. Sri. Nandish Patil, Advocate, files vakalath for the 2nd respondent.
2. The 2nd respondent also filed an affidavit stating that she has no objection to quash the proceedings in S.C. No.11/2014 registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Hassan, as both the petitioner and respondent No.2 are known to each other and they were having harmonial relationship between them and she has not suffered any injury at the hands of the petitioner. The FIR and the charge sheet papers also show that, the petitioner has not suffered any injury, though the offence under Section 307 of IPC has been invoked by the 1st Respondent-police in Crime No. 228/2013. The said case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 307 IPC. The petitioner at present is in judicial custody, as it appears he jumped the bail granted by the court.
3. The petitioner and respondent Nos.2 have compromised the matter. As the offence under Section 307 of IPC is non-compoundable, the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of the said proceedings, for which the 2nd respondent has no objection.
4. At this stage, it is worth to mention here a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2014 AIR SCW 4319 {Yogendra Yadav and Others. Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another.], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles as to under what circumstances, the offence under Section 307 of IPC can also be quashed. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as under:
“….Compounding of offences – Inherent powers-FIR lodged against appellants for offences under Section 326 and 307 of Penal Code which are non- compoundable offences- Affidavit filed by complainant stating about filing of compromise petition- also stating that appellants are neighbours and that they are living peacefully - In view of compromise, proceedings against appellants, quashed.”
5. If the above said principles are applied to the facts of this case, it is noticed that, in this case also the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are said to be belonged to neighbouring villages and the 2nd respondent has not sustained any injury and even after the incident, they are cordial to each other and they are living peacefully.
6. In the above circumstances, I do not find any strong reasons to reject the petition. Hence, I pass the following:-
ORDER The petition is allowed. The affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent is accepted. Consequently, the entire proceedings in S.C. No. 11/2014 registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 307 of IPC, pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, is hereby quashed.
If the petitioner is in custody, he shall be released forth with.
In view of disposal of this case, the application-IA No.1/2017 filed for stay, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*