Allowed

Sri Gangadhara v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2021CRL.P/5741/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings registered under Sections 323, 353, and 504 IPC. Relying on the Gan Singh guidelines regarding compounding, the court quashed the case against the petitioner due to a settlement between parties.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 pending in C.C. No.1035 of 2019 are quashed.

Sri Gangadhara Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5741 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI GANGADHARA S/O. CHUNCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, BORANAPALYA, KEMPANAHALLI POST – 572 126, HUTRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI G.R. JAYANNA, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUNIGAL POLICE STATION, KUNIGAL, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 130, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

¶13

SRI SHASHIDHAR H.J. K.S.R.T.C. BUS DRIVER, KUNIGAL DEPOT, RESIDING AT HULIYURDURGA HOSAPETE, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 123.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI B.J. ROHITH, H.C.G.P., FOR R-1, & SRI SATISH CHANDRA K.V., ADV., FOR R-2)

¶16

¶17

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.1035 OF 2019 PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KUNIGAL, ARISING FROM CRIME NO.198 OF 2019 OF KUNIGAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 353 AND 504 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Sri Satish Chandra, learned counsel, has filed

¶22

vakalatnama for respondent No.2.

¶23

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent No.1-State.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.4 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant along with their respective parties are present before the Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed I.A. No.1 of 2021 under Section 482 read with Section 320 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for compounding the offences. In pursuant to compounding the offences, he prayed for quashing the entire proceedings.

¶26

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that, on the complaint of respondent No.2, Kunigal Police Station registered a case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 353, and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and issued F.I.R. Allegation against the petitioner and other accused persons is that, on 23-7-2019 at 6:30 a.m., when respondent No.2-Driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus, bearing Registration No.KA-06 F-964, after dropping the commuters at Kunigal near Mysuru Circle, moving towards K.S.R.T.C. Kunigal Depot, at that time, some person obstructed him by standing on the road and thereby, showed criminal force on him from discharging his official duty. Initially, the case was registered against two accused persons and others. After charge-sheet, the name of the petitioner is shown as accused No.4.

¶28

On perusal of the entire material on record, the main allegation goes against the other accused persons. Except the petitioner was present along with other accused persons,

¶29

¶30

there is no other allegation. Now, the petitioner and respondent No.2 have filed an application for compounding the offences. In view of the settlement entered into between the parties and in view of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GIAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , I am of the view that criminal proceedings against the petitioner are required to be quashed.

¶31

Accordingly, the petition is allowed . Criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kunigal, Tumakuru, in C.C. No.1035 of 2019 are hereby quashed.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

kvk

Sri Gangadhara v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gangadhara v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.M.Ramakrishna Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt v Kamalamma Vs State of Karnataka

Srikanta v Vs State of Karnataka

Karthik Vs Sri T Yadva Murthy

Smt Divya a Vs Sri Adiveppa Magadum

Sri Muhammed Safwan Vs State of Karnataka