Ranbir Singh vs The State of Karnataka and Others

A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.—On a complaint filed by respondent No. 2, registered as PC No. 70/2009, learned Magistrate directed investigation of the case by respondent No. 1, as per order dated 01.06.2009. In pursuance of the said order, case in Crime No. 125/2009 was registered on 02.06.2009 by respondent No. 1. After investigation, ''B'' report was submitted on 12.10.2009. Protest petition having been filed by the complainant, learned Magistrate passed an order dated 01.06.2009 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 409 , 417 , 420 , 427 , 465 , 467 , 468 and 471 R/w Section 34 of IPC. Assailing the said order, the petitioner and two other accused filed Criminal Petition No. 9393/2010. By an order dated 12.06.2012, the impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to the Magistrate for fresh consideration. By an order dated 15.06.2013, the learned Magistrate having rejected "B" Final Report filed by the police and directed registration of C.C. No. 1484/2010 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 , 409 , 417 , 420 , 427 , 465 , 467 , 468 and 471 R/w Section 34 of IPC, this petition was filed by accused No. 1, to quash the entire proceedings.

The petitioner and respondent No. 2 have filed a joint petition under Section 320 of Cr.P.C on 30.09.2015. Learned advocates appearing for the petitioner and respondent No. 2 sought acceptance of the said petition to compound the offences.

Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the petition.

The point for consideration is, whether there can be compounding of the offences in question, which are non-compoundable?

In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , Apex Court has held that the offences which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by the Court and the provisions under Section 320 of Cr.P.C has to be strictly followed. However, in para 58 of the said decision, it has been observed that, this Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash a criminal proceedings having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, subject to the condition that if the offences involved are not compoundable cannot be compounded by quashing the proceedings, as the same will have harmful effect on the society. It has been made clear that in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, if this Court is convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore did not effect public peace or tranquility and that the quashing of the pending criminal proceeding on account of compromise would secure the ends of justice, this Court can quash the pending criminal case.

There was check bounce transaction between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. The parties have entered into a settlement and the said case was terminated by a learned Magistrate at Chandigarh, on the basis of a compromise petition filed by the parties. In view of the said settlement, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have entered into the settlement and filed the said joint petition.

Sri Shivakumar Kalloor, learned advocate for the petitioner and Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 submitted that dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 has been amicably settled and the parties would not intend to prosecute the matters against each other and that this petition may be allowed.

Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, learned advocate appearing for the complainant submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at with the petitioner, arraigned as accused No. 1 in the case pending before the Court below, the complainant is not interested in proceeding against all the accused persons. He submitted that accused Nos. 2 to 5 had no role in the matter and the entire case in C.C. No. 1484/2010 on the file of Prl. JMFC-II at Raichur may be quashed, as the parties herein entered into a settlement.

In view of the settlement which has been arrived at by the petitioner and respondent No. 2, learned HCGP has no objection for compounding of the offences.

In Criminal Petition No. 7853/2014 decided on 30.04.2015 (Mr. K. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka and another), under a similar circumstances, on account of the settlement arrived at by the parties, as stated in the application filed under Section 320 r/w 482 Cr.P.C, in order to secure the ends of justice, the impugned proceeding was quashed.

Sri Shivakumar Kalloor, learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gold Quest International Private Limited Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, . In the said decision, the Apex Court has noticed the decision in the case of GIAN SINGH (Supra) and did not interfere with the order impugned therein, passed by the learned Single Judge, quashing the FIR on the basis of a compromise and settlement between the parties, in respect of a non-compoundable offence.

Keeping in view the above, the joint petition filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 is allowed and as a consequence, entire proceedings of C.C. No. 1484/2010 (arising out of PC No. 70/2009) pending on the file of the Prl. JMFC-II at Raichur in respect of all the accused is quashed.