MR MANJUNATH PUNAM & ORS. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Petitioner Nos. 3 to 8 and the 2nd respondent are present before the Court.

Sri. Sajan P. Chinnappa, Advocate, files vakalath for the respondent and also files an affidavit of the 2nd respondent before the court.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that, the parties have filed a joint memo reporting compromise between themselves

pertaining to a case in C.C. No.29957/2017 on file of the 56th ACMM, Bengaluru.

The petitioners in the Joint Memo and the 2nd respondent in the affidavit filed before this court have submitted that, due to some misconception

of facts and differences between themselves, the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioners and the same has been registered in

Crime No.417/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 509, 504, 143, 354 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and the same was culminated

in charge sheet in C.C. 29957/2017. Now the parties have realized their differences and they have compromised the matter. The offences are not

punishable with death or life imprisonment. Except the offence under Section 354 and 149 of IPC, all other offences are compoundable in nature.

It is purely a private dispute between the parties, which will have no impact on the society.

At this stage, it is worth to note here a decision of Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10

SCC 303], wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has given certain guidelines with regard to quashing of the proceedings whenever the parties have

entered into compromise. The relevant portion of the said decision reads thus:- .

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, 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.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

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 it 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...

Therefore, irrespective of the fact that some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature, depending upon the facts and circumstances of

each case, the court can consider the dispute between the parties, depending upon the gravity and nature of heinousness of the offences and its

impact on the society and permit the parties to compromise the matter and consequently quash such proceedings

The above facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, also fall within the categories of the guidelines of the Hon''ble Apex Court noted

above. Hence, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings as prayed for. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

The petition is allowed. The compromise petition between the parties by way of joint memo and the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent are

hereby accepted. Consequently, the case in C.C. No.29957/2017 (arising out of Crime No.417/2017 of Kengeri Police Station) pending on the

file of the 56th ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 509, 504, 143, 354 r/w. 149 of IPC and all further

proceedings therein, are hereby quashed.