T.SUBRAMANI & ORS. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Sri. K. Lokesh, Advocate, files vakalath for Respondent No.2.

Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and Respondent No.2 along with their respective counsels are present before the Court.

Both the parties submit before the court that, they have compromised the matter and they have filed a joint memo before this court along with a

settlement arrived at between the parties in the Bengaluru Mediation Centre in connection with a civil suit pending between the parties in OS

No.567/2012.

By virtue of the compromise between the parties, the petitioner No.1-T.Subramani and also on behalf of other petitioners is making payment of

Rs.1,40,000/- by way of Demand Draft No. 208982 Dated 15.11.2017 in favour of Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, who is present before

the court acknowledges the receipt of the said Demand Draft.

It appears the entire dispute arose on the ground that the petitioners have created a power of attorney and in order to defeat the rights of the

2nd respondent, they have sold the property to some third person. In this context a civil suit was also filed by the 2nd respondent herein in OS

No.567/2012. In Para-7 of Mediation report submitted before this Court, it is clearly stated that the plaintiff has initiated criminal proceedings

against Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and their family members in C.C. No.5094/2014 pending before the I-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru

Rural District and according to terms of the compromise arrived between the parties, both the parties agreed to co-operate for disposal of the

proceedings before the high court provided the defendants file a criminal petition for quashing the entire proceedings pending in C.C.

No.5094/2014. In the civil case also they have compromised the matter, wherein the petitioners have agreed to return the property in favour of the

2nd respondent by getting the sale deed from the person to whom they have sold the property.

After hearing the parties in the above said manner and on submission made by the respective counsels and also in view of the Joint Memo filed

by the parties and the compromise entered into between the parties before the Bengaluru Mediation Centre in connection with O.S.No.567/2012,

it is just and necessary to quash the proceedings in order to facilitate the parties to arrive at a settlement as narrated in the report of the Mediation

Centre.

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...

On careful perusal of the factual aspects of this case, as noted above it is noticed that, the dispute between the parties is a transaction arising out

of a civil dispute with regard to the landed property between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent. Though there appears to be some allegations

with regard to forgery and overt acts, the allegations are virtually taken back by the complainant in view of the compromise entered into between

the parties. Therefore, in order to facilitate the parties to live happily in future by resolving all their disputes it is just and necessary to quash the

proceedings. Hence, I proceed to pass the following-

ORDER

Joint memo filed by the parties along with the Mediation Centre''s report is hereby taken on record and accepted. Consequently, the petition is

allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.5094/2014 pending on the file of the 1st ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections

420, 468, 471, 504, 506(B) r/w. 34 of IPC and all further proceedings therein are hereby quashed.