Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 624 (KAR)

Kantha Ramegowda v. State of Karnataka

2017-03-21

JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

body2017
ORDER : John Michael Cunha, J. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor on the compromise petition filed by the petitioners and respondent No.2. 2. The learned Addl. SPP had raised objection to entertain the compromise petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner Nos. 3, 4. 5 and 6 (accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6) have criminal antecedents. The learned Addl. SPP has filed a memo furnishing the details of the cases wherein these accused are implicated on the charges under Sections 302, 307, 120(B), 353, 307 and 324 of IPC. 3. The question which arises for consideration is whether solely on account of criminal antecedents of the petitioners, the compromise arrived at between the parties in the present case could be rejected? 4. In the present case, the injuries sustained by the victim are stated to be simple in nature. There are no allegations of using weapon. Going by the version of the prosecution, the accused fisted on the mouth of the victim and caused injuries over the upper lip. Though it is alleged that the accused No.1 tried to use knife, no injuries are stated to be sustained by use of knife. Therefore, merely because the provisions of Section 307 is alleged against the petitioners, it cannot be a reason to discard the compromise arrived at between the parties. 5. The cases where power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised where the parties have settled their dispute is considered in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 838). After analysing the whole case law on the subject, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that heinous and serious offences like mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be quashed even though the victim or victim- s family and offender have settled their dispute. 6. The principles laid down in the above case are reiterated in the subsequent case reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2065. In the said case the Supreme Court considered whether quashing of proceedings under Section 307 of IPC could be allowed when the offence alleged is heinous and serious in nature. 6. The principles laid down in the above case are reiterated in the subsequent case reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2065. In the said case the Supreme Court considered whether quashing of proceedings under Section 307 of IPC could be allowed when the offence alleged is heinous and serious in nature. Analysing the various aspects of the prosecution case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that when the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power, the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. In paras 28 and 29 of page 39 of the said judgment which are apt to be applied to the present case, reads as under; "Having said so, we could hasten to add that though it is a serious offence as the accused persons attempted to take the life of another person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307, IPC. Therefore, only because FIR/charge-sheet incorporates that provision of Section 307, IPC would not, by itself, be a ground to reject the petition under section 482 of the Code and refuse to accept the settlement between the parties. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while taking a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be effected or not, the High Court should go by the nature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely whether injuries are caused at the vital/delicate parts of the body) and the nature of weapons used etc. On that basis, if it is found that there is a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307, IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved, the court should not accept settlement between the parties. On that basis, if it is found that there is a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307, IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved, the court should not accept settlement between the parties. On the other hand, on the basis of prima facie assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the High Court forms an opinion that provisions of Section 307, IPC were unnecessarily included in the charge- sheet, the court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement between the parties. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation. of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O. under Section 173, Cr.P.C. is also placed before the Court it would become the bounden duty of the Court to go into the said report and evidence collected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury etc. sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examined along with another important consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this question in affirmative, then also such a case would be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal, in any case." 7. In view of the said proposition and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, there cannot be any legal impediment to accept the compromise petition entered into between the parties. Hence, the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 is accepted. In view of the said proposition and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, there cannot be any legal impediment to accept the compromise petition entered into between the parties. Hence, the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 is accepted. As respondent No.2 has withdrawn all the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the parties have mutually settled their disputes, proceedings in Cr.No.11/2017 are quashed. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.