A. K. Pathak S/o Ram Prakash Pathak v. State by Byappanahalli Police Station, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
2017-09-01
ARAVIND KUMAR
body2017
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER : 1. These petitions have been filed by the accused persons seeking for quashing of the proceedings initiated by Byappanahalli Police Station against them based on respective complaints filed by the informant which culminated in investigation being taken up and filing of the charge sheets in C.C. No. 52068/2015 for the offences punishable under Section 324 of IPC, C.C. No. 58033/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 354, 504 and 506 of IPC and C.C. No. 53414/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC, which proceedings are pending on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. 2. I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths Siji Malayil and M.B. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for parties and Sri Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 in the respective petitions are neighbours residing at Silver 3rd Enclave Apartment, V Main Road, Cross, Malleshpalya, Bengaluru-560075. On account of an incident/altercation that occurred on 23.10.2016 between them with regard to alleged misbehaviour, assault, etc. on account of security personnel having opened the gate of the flat at about 11.00 PM resulting in both the neighbours lodging complaints against each other and as already noticed hereinabove, investigation came to be conducted and charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons. 4. Today, learned Advocates appearing for the parties have filed a joint memo in these petitions stating thereunder that matter is settled amicably outside Court by the intervention of well wishers and elders of both the families and they being neighbours intend to live in harmonious relationship, as such to put an end to their differences and with an understanding that each of them will not interfere in each other matters, they have resolved their disputes. The complainant/first informant in the respective petitions have also stated that he/she does not intend to continue to prosecute the complaint lodged by them and the proceedings pending before jurisdictional Magistrate Court. Parties who are present before Court submit that they have affixed their signatures without any force, threat or coercion to the joint memo voluntarily and after having understood the contents of the joint memo. Their submission is placed on record. 5.
Parties who are present before Court submit that they have affixed their signatures without any force, threat or coercion to the joint memo voluntarily and after having understood the contents of the joint memo. Their submission is placed on record. 5. Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again held that exercise of discretionary power to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not limited to matrimonial cases alone and has wide power to quash even non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar contained in Section 320 in order to avoid abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice. As held by the Apex Court there cannot be any exhaustive list of such cases in order to define parameters to enable the High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent power. However, such power though not having any limitation is to be exercised sparingly and with utmost, care and caution and restraint. A resolution of a dispute by way of compromise between two warring groups or between two fighting individuals when calls for immediate attention of this Court, to give full effect to such compromise or settlement arrived, endeavour should be made as it would be a lawful composition and would promote harmony between the parties. 6. In the light of joint memo filed by the parties as noted hereinabove and both parties present before Court admit that they do not wish to prosecute their complaints and they have settled their disputes and intend to live harmoniously, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of further proceedings before jurisdictional Magistrate would be abuse of process of law and it would not sub-serve the ends of justice. 7. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: (1) Criminal Petition Nos. 6483/2017, 6878/2017 and 6880/2017 are hereby allowed. (2) Proceedings pending before X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bangalore in C.C. No. 52068/2015, C.C. No. 58033/2016 and C.C. No. 53414/2017 are hereby quashed. (3) Petitioners/accused are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 324 of IPC 323, 341, 354, 504, 506 of IPC and 341, 504 and 506 of IPC respectively.