L. Shanti vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, Respondent No. 2 and their respective counsels are present.

The parties have filed a joint memo before this court stating that the dispute between them has been compromised and the parties have resolved the entire conflict between themselves. By virtue of the settlement, Petitioner No. 1 herein has also withdrawn the suit in O.S. No. 4407/2010 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The compromise petition filed before the Civil Court in O.S. No. 4407/2010 is also produced before this court,

It appears Respondent No. 2 has also lodged a private complaint, which came to be investigated and charge sheet being filed, the VII ACMM, Bangalore, has registered a case in C.C. No. 15071/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. In the light of the compromise between the parties, the 2nd respondent herein also has agreed to withdraw the case against the petitioners in C.C. No. 15701/2012, which is the subject matter of this petition.

The petitioners herein had arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 and 3 before the trial Court in C.C. No. 15071/2013. The allegation made against the petitioners in the charge sheet is that the 2nd respondent had purchased site Nos. 61 & 52 in Khatha No. 159/1 situated at Jarakabande Kaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, for a sum of Rs. 4.00 lakhs on 21.04.2010 and Accused No. 1 concocted the document styled as General Power of Attorney in respect of the said property and sent a notice to the complainant (2nd respondent) stating that she is still liable to pay a sum of Rs. 8.00 Lakhs and the accused persons have threatened her with dire consequences etc.. Further, it is alleged that, Accused Nos. 1 and 3 along with deceased Accused No. 2, concocted a GPA and demanded a sum of Rs. 8.00 lakhs from the 2nd respondent.

The above factual aspects disclose that the dispute between the parties is purely a private and personal in nature. It would not affect the society and also public at large. When the parties have settled their conflict, compromised the matter between themselves and reported the same by filing a joint memo before this court agreeing to withdraw the cases filed against each other, I do not find any strong reasons to refuse the relief sought for.

The offence under Section 465 of IPC is punishable with of two years; the offence under Section 468 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of seven years; Section 471 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of three years and Section 420 of IPC is an offence punishable with imprisonment of seven years. Though the offences are punishable with imprisonment of seven years, in view of the factual matrix of this particular case, as I have noted above, it is purely a civil dispute between the parties, which appears to have been converted into a criminal dispute and the civil dispute has ended in compromise. Therefore, the parties should not be allowed to continue in the criminal records, in which the parties have entered into a compromise.

In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , the Apex Court has held thus:-

"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."

In the above said decision, the Apex Court has cautioned that the firstly, the court has to examine whether the dispute between the parties is a family dispute or it is basically a private or personal in nature, and whether the parties have resolved their entire dispute and only thereafter, the court can quash the criminal proceedings.

According to the above guidelines of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the said decision, where the matter is purely a private and personal in nature, the said principle is exactly applicable. This is one such case, to which the said principle is applicable. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any legal impediment to record the compromise and quash the proceedings.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C. No. 15071/2012 on the file of the VII-ACMM, Bangalore, is hereby quashed.