IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.446/2017 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. N.V. VENKATARAVANAPPA S/O LATE PEDDA VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
2. SRI. ERAPPA S/O LATE PEDDA VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
3. SRI. RAVI S/O LATE PEDDA VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND R/AT YAGAVANETTAKUNTAPALLI VILLAGE, CHELUR HOBLI BAGEPALLI TALUK - 563 124.
(BY SRI. DEEPAK J., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE BY BAGEPALLI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SMT. VENKATARAVANAMMA W/O CHINNA VENKATARAMANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT MACHANAHALLI VILLAGE ... PETITIONERS PALYAKERE POST CHELUR HOBLI BAGEPALLI TALUK - 563 124.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. R.V. SHIVANANDA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.265/2013 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BAGEPALLY FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 420, 465 AND 468 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners who are arraigned as accused in C.C.No.265/2013 (arising out of Crime No.254/2011) registered by Bagepalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 468 of IPC which has resulted in charge sheet being filed against them and as such they are before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.
2. Affidavits have been filed by the petitioners and second respondent whereunder it is stated that petitioners are the children of second respondent’s husband’s brother and they had clandestinely with an intention to deceive her the share of property bearing Sy.Nos.100 and 138 measuring 4 acres 30 guntas and 2 acres respectively and have got the revenue records mutated to their names and as such, she had sought for action being taken against them and now in the light of subsequent developments whereunder petitioners have admitted that inheritance khatha obtained by them was due to inadvertence and said khatha having been cancelled, she has no objection for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against petitioners.
3. Taking into consideration the statement made on oath by the second respondent-complainant that out of her own free will and volition, without any threat, force or coercion she has affixed her LTM to the affidavit filed today along with the interlocutory application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Second respondent also submits that she is not inclined to continue with the complaint lodged by her against petitioners. To establish the identities of parties present in Court today, photocopies of identity cards issued by the statutory authorities is produced along with their affidavits.
4. Parties are present before Court and they are identified by their respective learned Advocates. In token of having identified the parties present before Court, learned Advocates have also affixed their signatures to the photocopies of identity cards.
5. In the light of aforestated facts and keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and second respondent and petitioners being close relatives namely, petitioners being the sons of second respondent’s husband’s brother and dispute having been amicably settled, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of further proceedings against petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose 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 petitioners in C.C.No.265/2013 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagepalli, against petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 468 of IPC, is hereby quashed and petitioners are acquitted of the said offences.
In view of petition having been allowed, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration and it is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE DR