Allowed

Akkayamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2020CRL.P/3223/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings (C.C. No. 65/2017) against petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held that since a related civil dispute over property was settled via compromise decree, continuing criminal liability was not in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.65/2017 pending in the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara are quashed.

Akkayamma Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

CRL.P.No.3223 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3223 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

AKKAYAMMA, W/O LATE HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,

¶10

H.LOKESH, S/O LATE HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶11

SMT.MANJULA, W/O H.LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶12

PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO.JADENAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK. ... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SMT.MANJULA P.V., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BIDADI POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT AND TALUK – 562 109. REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,

¶16

CRL.P.No.3223 of 2020

¶17

¶18

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 1.

¶19

V.S.NIRMALA, W/O P.G.SESHASHAYANAM, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.207, IV STAGE, III BLOCK, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 17^TH D CROSS, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079. ... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.PRITHVI RAJ B.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONERS I.E., ACCUSED NO.1, 4 AND 5 IN C.C.NO.65/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 209, 210, 418, 420, 447, 417, 109 OF IPC.

¶22

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.65/2017 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara for the alleged offences punishable

¶26

CRL.P.No.3223 of 2020

¶27

¶28

under Sections 209,210, 418,420, 447,417 and 109 of IPC.

¶29

In connection with the above complaint, a suit in O.S.No.484/2013 has been filed by the complainant/respondent No.2 along with certain others against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein. The said suit has ended in compromise by filing compromise petition on 18.11.2019 and the compromise decree had also been drawn in the said O.S.No.484/2013.

¶30

The parties are before this Court through video conference. Smt.V.S.Nirmala, complainant/ respondent No.2 is identified by her counsel Sri. Prithivi Raj.B.N., learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri. H. Lokesh and Smt. Manjula, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are also before this Court through video conference and are identified by their counsel Smt.Manjula.P.V., learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶31

CRL.P.No.3223 of 2020

¶32

¶33

Petitioner No.1 is stated to be aged 80 years and unable to travel from home and an access through video conference and hence has authorized her son Sri. H.Lokesh on her behalf.

¶34

On enquiry, Smt. V.S.Nirmala, respondent No.2 submits that dispute between the parties has been resolved as per the compromise petition in O.S.No.484/2013 wherein she along with certain others have compromised the matter with the petitioners herein out of their free will and volition. She submits that one of the term of compromise is for withdrawal of criminal proceedings and/or quashing of criminal proceedings subject matter of this petition.

¶35

Though the offences alleged in the complaint filed by respondent No.2 and the petitioners are noncompoundable offences, however considering the fact that they also involved an allegation of civil dispute in respect of property in question, which has been settled. I am of the considered opinion that the

¶36

CRL.P.No.3223 of 2020

¶37

¶38

continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would not be in the interest of justice more so, since the parties have resolved the disputes and differences by way of compromise petition.

¶39

In view of the above, the proceedings in C.C.No.65/2017 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara is hereby quashed.

¶40

Accordingly, the petition is allowed .

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

SSD

Akkayamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akkayamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H.P. Manjunath Vs Smt. H.R. Sabitha

T S Suresh Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

Prof Veena Karanth Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nanjundaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nanjundaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Rekha Vs the State of Karnataka