IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRL.P.NO.8405/2016 C/W CRL.P.NO.2704/2016 IN CRL.P.NO.8405/2016 BETWEEN SRI R.HARISH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O. RANGAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.572, BELUR ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577101.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA K, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, J.C.NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY-560006.
2. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI W/O R.V.MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.29, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK, GURKUNTEPALYA, BANGALORE-560022.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1, SRI M.S.NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2016 PASSED IN C.C.NO.9631/2016 PENDING ON VIII ACMM, BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETR. FOR AN OFFENCE WHICH IS MADE PENAL U/S 420 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ORDERING COERCIVE PROCESS AGAINST HIM FOR HIS APPEARANCE IN THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT.
CRL.P.NO.2704/2016 BETWEEN SRI R.HARISH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O. RANGAIAH, NO.175, 1ST MAIN, 5TH CROSS, SRINIVASANAGAR, BANGALORE-560050.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA K, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, J.C.NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY-560006.
2. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.29, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK, GURKUNTEPALYA, BANGALORE-560046.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1, SRI M.S.NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE F.I.R IN CR.NO.139/2015 REGISTERED AT J.C.NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE PENDING BEFORE THE VIII ADDL.C.M.M. AT BANGALORE, FOR AN OFFENCE WHICH IS MADE PENAL UNDER SEC.420 R/W 34 OF IPC, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader.
2. The parties were present yesterday i.e. on 21.10.2019 and during the hearing, a joint memo was filed into court and the same reads as under:-
“JOINT MEMO The petitioner and respondent No.2 above named submit as follows:
1. The petitioner has filed the above petitions for quashing charge sheet submitted by the first respondent police in C.C. No.9631/2016 for the alleging offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.
2. The petitioner and second respondent herein have resolved all their disputes in O.S.No.5583/2007 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. In view of the settlement entered in the said suit, the respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.9631/2016 and similarly, the petitioner herein has also agreed to withdraw the case filed by him against the respondent No.2 herein in C.C.No.16405/2015 for the offence punishable under section 448 of IPC. Both the cases are pending before the Hon’ble VIII A.C.M.M. Bengaluru city.
3. The respondent No.2 has no objection to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.9631/2016, pending on the file of VIII A.C.M.M Bengaluru city, filed against the petitioner and further the petitioner has also no objection to quash the counter case in C.C.No.16405/2015 filed against the respondent No.2 pending before the same court.
Wherefore, the petitioner and respondent No.2 pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to dispose the aforesaid petitions in terms of the Joint Memo, in the interest of justice.”
3. On a query the parties submitted that they have amicably resolved the issue. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused is none other than the brother-in-law. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the complainant are brother-in-law and sister-in-law. That the dispute pertains to a partition of the family property namely the house property. It was alleged that the petitioner had induced the complainant to vacate the residence on the promise of paying its value and that payment was not made and hence on these allegations the complaint came to be lodged by the second respondent-complainant. It is now stated that the parties being the members of the same family, have in their own wisdom agreed to resolve it amicably. He would submit that the civil case in O.S. No.5583/2007 has been ordered in terms of the settlement entered into between the parties.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav & Others, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 to contend that even in cases which are non-compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., in the event of the parties are having mutually agreed for settlement, it was open for the courts to quash such complaints. The Hon’ble Apex Court relying on the judgment of its own rendered in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has observed in para 5 & 6 as follows:-
“5. Section 420, IPC, one of the counts on which the petitioner has been convicted, no doubt is a compoundable offence with the permission of the Court in view of Section 320 CrPC but Section 120- B IPC, the other count on which the petitioner has been convicted, is a non-compoundable offence. Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) is a separate offence and since it is a non-compoundable offence, we cannot permit it to be compounded.
6. The Court cannot amend the statute and must maintain judicial restraint in this connection. The courts should not try to take over the function of Parliament or the executive. It is the legislature alone which can amend Section 320 CrPC.”
5. In the light of the above, this court has gone through the rulings relied upon the Yogendra Yadav’s and Gian Singh cases stated supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh’s case at para 4 has observed as follows:-
“4. Section 320 CrPC mentions certain offences as compoundable, certain other offences as compoundable with the permission of the court, and the other offences as non-compoundable vide Section 320(7).”
6. In the instant case the offence alleged is one of cheating and the allegations are against a member of the family. The petitioner-accused is none other than the brother-in-law of the complainant. In that view of the matter, it is but natural that the parties would desire to give a quietus in order to maintain a cordial relationships and harmony in the family. The fact also remains that the issue with regard to the right, title and interest in the property is a civil dispute and now it is stated that the dispute has been resolved amicably and hence the nature of offence alleged not being heinous in nature and not being one which would shock the conscious of the society in general.
The petition is allowed in view of the compromise.
The C.C. No.9631/2016 on the file of the VIII ACMM, Bangalore arising out of Crime No.139/2015 is quashed.
In view of the order passed in the main matter i.e. Crl.P. 8405/2016, the connected Crl.P 2704/2016 is rendered infructuous and is disposed off accordingly.
Chs* CT-HR SD/- JUDGE