Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 401 (KAR)

Mahesh Suresh Benakannavar v. State of Karnataka

2023-03-09

J.M.KHAZI

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER J.M. Khazi, J. - 1. Petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.5 has filed this petition under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the criminal proceedings pending against him in S.C.No.8052/2022 on the file of the XII Addl. Session Court, Belagavi sitting at Gokak for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 363 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code read with under Section 25(1A) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that a complaint came to be filed by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 alleging that petitioner and others have assaulted and kidnapped respondent No.3. After completing investigation, charge sheet is filed in S.C.No.8052/2022. 2.1. Petitioner is selected and appointed as Agni Veer in defence. On account of pendency of the above case, he is unable to join the service. On the advice of the family members of the petitioner and respondent No.3 and elders of the village, they have settled their differences amicably. Therefore, respondent No.3 does not want to pursue the case against petitioner and prays to allow the petition and quash further proceedings so far as petitioner is concerned. 3. Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. Sri.Naveen Chatrad, learned counsel has filed vakalath for respondent No.3. 5. A joint memorandum of compromise petition is filed under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the counsel for petitioner and respondent No.3 stating that petitioner is appointed as Agni Veer in the defence. On account of pendency of the criminal proceedings in question, he is not able to report for duty and final notice is given to him to report on or before 11.03.2023, failing which, his candidature will be cancelled and therefore, respondent No.3 would not prosecute the compliant as against the petitioner and prays to accept the compromise petition and quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 6. It is supported by an affidavit filed by respondent No.3. 7. Both petitioner and respondent No.3 are present before the Court and admitted the compromise and prays to accept the same and quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 8. Heard arguments and perused the records. 9. 6. It is supported by an affidavit filed by respondent No.3. 7. Both petitioner and respondent No.3 are present before the Court and admitted the compromise and prays to accept the same and quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 8. Heard arguments and perused the records. 9. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh V/s. State of Punjab 2014 AIR SCW 2065 (Narindra Singh's case) wherein at paragraph 31, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with a direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. 9.1. In Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303 , (Gian Singh's Case), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the scope of the power of trial Court in excising the discretion under Section 320 of Cr.P.C and that of the High Court exercising inherited powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 9.2. In Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., even though the offence alleged is non-compoundable, if parties have amicably settled their disputes and victim has no objection. However, this would depend on the facts of each case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder cannot be effaced by quashing proceedings because they have harmful effect on Society and are not restricted to individuals or groups. Quashing of such offence may send a wrong signal to the Society. However, if the High Court is convinced that the offences are individual or personal in nature and not affecting the public peace or tranquility and quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would secure the ends of justice, it may quash the same. In such case, the prosecution becomes lame and pursuing such lame prosecution may become waste of time and energy and also unsettled compromise and obstruct restoration of peace. 10. In such case, the prosecution becomes lame and pursuing such lame prosecution may become waste of time and energy and also unsettled compromise and obstruct restoration of peace. 10. In the light of the above decisions, it would be necessary to examine whether this is a fit case to accept the compromise between the parties. The complaint averments reveal that in the background of quarrel that took place between Mudakappa Angadi, Yallappa Madamageri and his supporters on 06.10.2021, as a result of which, one Ramesh Chandaragi was assaulted with knives and clubs and abducted, in all 15 persons including the charge sheeted accused persons and the petitioner herein, came in different vehicles, assaulted respondent No.3 with knives and clubs, abducted him in the vehicle and near Vannur village. He was thrown out of the vehicle and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 363 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code read with under Section 25(1A) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. 11. The specific allegations against the petitioner are that while respondent No.3 was being abducted in the car, he kicked respondent No.3 with legs. 12. From perusal of material placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner has kicked respondent No.3 with legs. No serious allegations are there against him. In the light of the fact that petitioner is selected as Agni Veer and in the said background, respondent No.3 has compromised with him, continuation of the prosecution may become waste of time and energy and also unsettle the compromise and obstruct the restoration of peace. The offences alleged are not involving moral turpitude or grave offences like rape or murder affecting the society at large. 13. Having regard to these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court. In order to do real, complete and substantial justice between the parties, it would be appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings, so far as petitioner is concerned, by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed in terms of the compromise petition. Permission is granted to the parties to compound and in the result, the entire proceedings S.C.No.8052/2022 on the file of the XII Addl. Permission is granted to the parties to compound and in the result, the entire proceedings S.C.No.8052/2022 on the file of the XII Addl. Session Court, Belagavi sitting at Gokak, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 363 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code read with under Section 25(1A) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 as against petitioner/accused are hereby quashed. In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.