IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5728/2016 BETWEEN:
Mr. Syed Tabrez Pasha Bagdhadhi S/o. Syed Shabeer Pasha Bagdhadhi Aged about 38 years R/o. No.12/13 “Vigneesh Residency” Flat No.302, 2nd Cross Shanthivanam, Sanjivininagar Bengaluru – 560 092. …Petitioner (By Sri. Bharath Kumar V., Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka Through Station House Officer R.T.Nagar Police Station Bengaluru – 560 032 Represented by :
State Public Prosecutor Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Syeda Simran Bagdadi @ Umeya Adiba Aged 33 years R/o. No.171, 9th cross William Town Bengaluru – 560 046. ...Respondents (By Sri. I. S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R.1 and Sri. V.B.Siddaramaiah, Advocate for R-2, Absent.) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to :
a) quash the FIR and information dated 11.09.2013 preferred by the respondent No.2 and registered by the respondent No.1 – Police as FIR No.298/2013 for alleged offences under Secs. 341, 323, 504 and 506 r/w. 34, wherein the petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.1 vide Annexures – A and A.1;
b) quash the final report preferred by the respondent No.1 – Police in matter bearing CR.No.293/2013 currently renumbered as matter bearing C.C.No.27663/2014, pending on the file of VIII ACMM, Bangalore, wherein the petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No2 for the alleged offences under Secs. 341, 323, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC, vide Annexure – B;
c) quash the entire proceedings in matter bearing CR.No.298/2013 pending on the file of VII ACMM, Bangalore, vide Annexure – C.
This Criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.27663/2014 arising out of Cr.No.298/2013.
When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has filed a memo, which reads as follows :
The respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner has challenged the proceedings in Crime No.315/2013 registered by R.T.Nagar Police Station, pending on the file of the 8th Addl. C.M.M. Court, Bangalore, in C.C.No.27663/2014. Earlier the petitioner has filed Crl.P.No.5838/2013 before this Hon’ble Court. By order dated 29.10.2013, the Crl.P. No.5838/2013 was dismissed. The petitioner has suppressed the dismissal of the Crl.P.No. 5838/2013. While dismissing the earlier Crl.P., this Hon’ble Court has held that “It is also open for the petitioner to argue on this controversy before the trial Court before framing charge”. This Hon’ble Court has further held that “3. In the circumstances, this is not a fit case where this court can exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly dismissed.”
The copy of the order is produced herewith for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
Wherefore, the R-2 prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to dismiss the above Crl.P. for suppression of facts to meet the ends of justice.”
The above memo clearly indicates that the earlier petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.482 seeking the relief of quashing, has been rejected. Hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have entered into a mutual settlement and terms of the said settlement, respondent No.2 has undertaken to withdraw the present proceedings.
It is seen from the records that a joint memo was filed by the parties in Crl.Misc.No.254/2013. But no order has been passed on the said memo by the trial court. It is also not known whether the parties have acted in terms of the said memo. Parties have not chosen to file a petition under Section 320 Cr.P.C seeking leave to compound the offences. In the absence of any such application this Court cannot quash the proceedings based on the joint memo filed before the trial court. In the said circumstances, it is proper for the parties to appear before the trial court and invite an order on the joint memo filed by them. Accordingly, reserving such liberty, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Mgn/-