Joseph Chacko vs The State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Learned Counsel Sri. Bhanu Prakash files Vakalat for respondent in the above said case.

Petitioner and his Counsel, respondent No. 2 and his Counsel are present. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent have filed joint affidavit reporting the compromise and also seeking withdrawal of the case pending before the Trial Court. They have specifically narrated in the affidavit that the complainant (2nd respondent) has lodged a complaint against the accused under Section 465, 468, 471 and 420 of I.P.C. registered against the petitioner. It is contended that at the earliest point of time it was assumed by the complainant that the accused has cheated and robbed the NRI''s of their hard earned money and the accused has sold plots to the NRI''s including the complainant/applicant without any authority. There was a legal defect in the title of the plots so sold. Later, the complainant after discussing the same with some of the NRI''s and came to know that the accused/petitioner is an innocent person and he has been deliberately framed in this entire sea of frivolous criminal litigation with the sole view of keeping him entangled in the legal proceedings, but later it was ascertained that, the accused with all authority has acted upon in accordance with law.

Therefore, having come to know about the same, the parties have entered into compromise and they have no objections to quash the proceedings.

I have also carefully perused the complaint averments what has been stated in the affidavit is nothing but the reiteration of the contents of the complaint. In the complaint also, it is similarly stated that the accused claiming himself as the owner with a defective title, sold some of the plots to the NRI''s including the complainant. After going through the contents and as well as the affidavit, I am of the opinion, it is purely a private transaction between the accused and the complainant and also there is no impact on the society so far as this aspect is concerned. If at all any other person is aggrieved he can also move the Court with appropriate remedy. But, so far as the petitioner/accused and the complainant are concerned, they have compounded the offences and there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings.

In this regard, the learned Counsel has relied upon a Ruling reported in: Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, wherein it is held that:

"Ss 482 and 320 -Relative scope-Inherent power of High Court under S. 482 to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in view of compromise arrived at between the parties-Whether available-If so, then when may such power be exercised-Social impact of crime in question vis-a-vis its individual impact, as decisive criterion for exercise of quashment power in such cases-Guidelines for and limitations on exercise of quashment power of High Court in such cases, laid down-Whether S. 320 creates a bar/limits inherent power of High Court under S. 482, examined-Whether B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, and Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others, require reconsideration.

Held, power of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from power of a criminal court of compounding offences under S. 320-cases where power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised where the parties have settled their dispute, held, depends on facts and circumstances of each case-Before exercise of inherent quashment power under S. 482, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact.

Thus, held 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing. 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 whether 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".

The Court has also relied upon the earlier decisions in B.S. Joshi (20G3) 4 SCO 675 , Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, and Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others, . As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Manoj Sharma''s case, similar provisions of IPC have been invoked and the Court has permitted the parties to compromise the matter on the ground that the dispute between the parties was basically private and personal in nature with reference to the financial, commercial litigation or transaction between themselves.

In this case also, the same principle is applicable and there is no legal impediment to this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for.

Hence, the following Order:

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings pending before the 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C. No. 13198/2010 (arising out of Crime No. 4/2009 registered by Kothanur PS) is hereby quashed.