IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2613/2019 BETWEEN :
1. Sri. Lathish Kille S/o. Narayana Kille Aged about 47 years R/a. Kille Compound Jeepu Kudupadi Kankanadi Post Mangaluru Taluk – 575 008.
2. Sri. Thimmappa Shetty S/o. late Poovappa Shetty Aged about 76 years R/a. Sri. Thirumala Ferry Road, Bolara Mangaluru – 575 012.
3. Sri. Chidananda Shetty S/o. late Vishwanatha Shetty Aged about 35 years R/a. Bajal Padubeedu Bajal Village and Post Mangaluru taluk – 575 009. … Petitioners (By Sri. Haleema Ameen, Adv., for Sri. Ashok Kumar Shetty, Adv.) AND :
1. State of Karnataka Mangaluru South Police Station Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Sri. Praveen K S/o. Shivananda Aged about 41 years R/a. Shivasadana Ullala Gandhinagara Ullala Post Mangaluru – 575 020. … Respondents (By Sri. R.D. Renukaradhya, HCGP, for R-1 Sri. Deepak Shetty S., Adv., for R-2) ---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 3975 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act and Sections 5, 37, 38, 29 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act pending on the file of JMFC II Court, Mangaluru and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court passed the following;
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C on behalf of the petitioners and respondent No. 2 praying that the proceedings be quashed by compounding the offences. During the course of proceedings they had initiated proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and respondent No. 2 by demonstrating his defence proceeded to file a complaint under Section 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act and Sections 5, 37, 38, 29 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act read with Section 120(B), 506 and 34 of IPC.
3. Today, instant application is filed and the said application is supported by individual affidavits of the petitioners and respondent No. 2. Affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 reads as under:
2. I am the respondent No. 2/Complainant in the above petition. I am aware of facts and circumstances of the case and hence deposing as hereunder:
3. I say that, this criminal petition is filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 3975/2017 registered for the offence punishable under Section 120(B), 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act and Sections 5, 37, 38, 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act 1961 pending on the file of II Additional JMFC Court, Mangalore.
4. I say that, in respect of the loan availed by me case came to be registered against me for the offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I. Act on the file of JMFC Court, Mangalore.
5. I say that, I filed a case against the Petitioner’s for offences U/s 120(B), 506 read with section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act and Sections 5, 37, 38, 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act 1961, in my defence and the same is numbered at C.C. No. 3975/2017 on the file of JMFC II Court, Mangalore.
6. I say that, we have compromised and settled the above matter between ourselves.
Hence, I pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to permit to compound the offences and quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 3975/2017, punishable under sections 120(B), 506 read with section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act and Sections 5, 37, 38, 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act 1961, pending on the file of JMFC II Court, Mangaluru, in the interest of justice.
4. Parties are present before the Court. On a query from the Court respondent No. 2 would submit that the complaint came to be lodged on account of misunderstanding and that the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves and hence does not desire to pursue the same any further. Submission of respondent No. 2 is placed on record.
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 at paragraph No. 58 the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to lay down the broad parameters which should govern exercise of power of quashment by the Courts.
58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPD or offences of moral turpitude under special statures, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arise out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like dowry, etc., or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.
6. The allegations against the petitioners in the instant case does not fall within the definition of heinous crimes and apparently they had monetary transaction resulting in the complaint. There is no legal impediment to allow the application. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in C.C. No. 3975/2017 pending on the file of JMFC II Court, Mangaluru is hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE LRS.