Yallappa vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Respondent No. 2 is present before the Court.

Sri Channabasappa H.H., learned counsel files vakalath for respondent No. 2 and identified him before this Court as respondent No. 2.

Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and their counsel are present. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent is present before the Court.

I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the petitioners, respondent No. 2 and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1.

Petitioners and respondent No. 2 have filed an application under Section 320 r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C., requesting this Court to permit the parties to compound the offences and quash the entire proceedings pending before the IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, in S.C. No. 185/2013.

The charge sheet papers disclose that the petitioners and respondent No. 2 are close relatives to each other i.e., to say petitioner No. 3 is none other than elder brother of respondent No. 2. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of petitioner No. 3. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 3 before the Trial Court. Respondent No. 2 is the complainant arrayed as CW1 in the charge sheet. The allegations made in the charge sheet papers are that on 12.02.2013 at about 6.00 p.m. accused No. 1 has assaulted CW1 with a club, accused No. 2 assaulted CW.1 with his hands and accused No. 3 also assaulted CW.1 with a club and caused injuries. The police have invoked the provisions of Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Out of the above said offences, offence punishable under Sections 324, 506 and 307 of IPC are non-compoundable offences, rest of the offences are compoundable. The parties are close relatives to each other. They have compounded the offences. As the matter cannot be compounded under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., before the Trial Court, they approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings against the accused persons. In the application filed under Section 320 r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C., they have categorically stated that the injuries sustained by the second respondent were not severe in nature. They have compounded the offences amicably between themselves, in order to continue their harmonious relationship in the family, they require these proceedings to be quashed.

The second respondent who is CW.1 before the Trial Court has filed an affidavit in support of the application under Section 320 r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C., reiterating the contents of the said application. In this regard, this Court has to see whether the parties genuinely seek quashing of the proceedings. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties and the incident taken place on 12.02.2013. In fact, respondent No. 2 has also suffered some injuries. However, the parties with regard to their relationship and to continue their harmonious relationship in future, they have genuinely appeared before this Court seeking quashing of these proceedings. In this regard, it is worth to refer to a decision of the Apex Court under what circumstances the said proceedings can be quashed. In a decision reported in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , the Apex Court has held that:

"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 Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 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. Before exercise of inherent quashment power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 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 questions are answered in the affirmative, High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

From the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that parties are none other than brothers to each other. Under the peculiar circumstances, in a heat of passion, the incident had happened and an unpleasant situation occurred in the family of petitioners and second respondent, which culminated in a criminal proceeding against the petitioners. It is purely a dispute between the family members and wrong is private in nature and if the compromise is ordered, it will not have any societal impact because no other person is going to be affected by means of such compromise. Therefore, applying the above said principles to the facts of this case, I am of the opinion, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings as sought for.

It is worth to note here a decision of this Court reported in 2011 Cr. R 415 Karnataka in the case of Madarsab and others v. State of Karnataka, wherein, in the similar circumstance, the Court has held that when the offence relied upon by the prosecution is under Section 307 of IPC, the compounding of the offences by the parties who are closely related and when they want to settle their dispute amicably and have come forward to put quietus to the entire proceedings, permission to such compounding shall be granted.

Looking to the above said facts and law laid down by the Apex Court, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the Court can exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to permit the parties to compound the offences. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

"Parties are permitted to compound the offences exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and the entire proceedings which are pending on the file of the IV-Additional Sessions Court, Kalaburagi, in S.C. No. 185/2013 are hereby quashed."