Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 563 (KAR)

Sidram Nagappa Kamble v. State of Karnataka

2017-03-07

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2017
ORDER : K.N. Phaneendra, J. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and Respondent No. 2-Smt. Vimala Vasant Kamble are present before the court along with their respective counsels. 2. The parties on both sides have filed a compromise petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and sought for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 767/2016 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354(B), 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC. 3. It is stated in the said compromise petition that the offences under Sections 324 and 354(B) of IPC are non-compoundable in nature, therefore, the parties have approached this court for quashing of the entire proceedings. The matter has been amicably settled between the parties on the advice of the elders of the village and in view of their relationship. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is worth to note hear a decision reported in 2012(10) SCC 303 : (AIR 2012 SC (Cri) 1796) between Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, wherein it is observed that under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court can quash the criminal cases even in respect of non-compoundable offences. But, before exercising any such inherent powers, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact. The Hon'ble Apex Court also categorized some of the cases in which the parties can compound the offences even if they are non-compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., before the High Court due to the power vested with the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically observed in the said decision thus: "Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity, etc. or under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants while working in their capacity as public servants, cannot be quashed even though victim or victim's family and offender have settled the dispute - Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. - But, criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantingly Civil flavour stand on a different footing- 'if the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. - But, criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantingly Civil flavour stand on a different footing- 'if the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute, High Court may quash criminal proceedings. High Court, in such cases, must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between parties and to secure ends of justice, it is appropriate the criminal case is put to an end - If such question(s) are answered in the affirmative, High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings." 5. The court has to apply its mind to ascertain whether the present case falls within the category of the guidelines narrated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Only the offences alleged in the case under Section 324 and 354(B) are non-compoundable in nature. However, the said offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, but they are punishable with imprisonment for 3 years or fine, or both and imprisonment of not less than 3 years but which may extend to 7 years and with fine, respectively. 6. It appears the parties are related to each other. On an enquiry of the complainant-2nd respondent, who is present before the court, she admitted before the court that the petitioners herein are her relatives and the dispute arose between them due to some differences in their family. Therefore, they have settled the dispute between themselves and they want to live happily with each other in future. 7. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the above factual aspects falls within the category of the cases mentioned in the ruling Gian Singh (AIR 2012 SC (Cri) 1796) (supra). Therefore, in order to put an end to the dispute between the parties, as the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the criminal case pending against them deserves to be quashed. Accordingly the following order is passed. ORDER 1. The compromise petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Therefore, in order to put an end to the dispute between the parties, as the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the criminal case pending against them deserves to be quashed. Accordingly the following order is passed. ORDER 1. The compromise petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in C.C. No. 767/2016 and all further related proceedings, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag, is hereby quashed.