Allowed

Pazhaniyappa Vellumayil v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2021CRL.P/6095/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for offences under Sections 354, 354(A), and 354(D) IPC. Despite the offences being non-compoundable, the court quashed them based on a settlement between former colleagues to foster a congenial atmosphere.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; criminal proceedings in C.C. No.55237/2020 quashed.

Pazhaniyappa Vellumayil Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6095 of 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

PAZHANIYAPPA VELUMAYIL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O. P. VELUMAYIL, RESIDING AT No.F006, GROUND FLOOR, MANJEERA DIAMOND TOWERS, GOPANPALLY, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT, TELANGANA – 500 046.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI HARSHA M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MARATHAHALLI P.S., REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

MS. SHRINE LOVETT, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O. MR. ROBERT LOVETT, RESIDING AT No.F-03, DIVYA SAPTHAMI APARTMENTS, 1^ST CROSS, VIJAYA BANK, ANUGRAHA LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 076.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP for R-1/STATE; SRI SHARATH K.R., ADVOCATE for R-2)

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 320 READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2020 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE IN C.C.No.55237/2020 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354, 354(A) AND 354(D) OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XXIX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT MAYO HALL, BENGALURU AND SUBSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.No.55237/2020.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner and respondent No.2 along with their respective counsel are present before the Court.

¶21

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.55237/2020 pending on the file of the XXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(A) and 354(D) of IPC.

¶22

During the pendency of this petition, both the petitioner and respondent No.2 have filed joint

¶23

¶24

compromise application in I.A.No.2/2021 under Section 320 read with section 482 of Cr.P.C. for compounding the offences and to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner also produced the judgments of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case Nithin Sharma vs. Kumari Ashifa and another passed in Crl.P.No.8956/2017, disposed of on 28.11.2017 and in the case of Mr. Manjunath Punam and others vs. State of Karnataka and another passed in Crl.P.No.1071/2018, disposed of on 09.02.2018, wherein this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings in respect to the offence under Section 354 of IPC.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No.2 have worked together in a Company and now they have settled the dispute between themselves and they have come forward to compound the offence. Therefore, prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings.

¶27

¶28

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian

¶29

Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has allowed the parties to compound the offences. In case, the offence is non-compoundable, if the parties are allowed to compound, the same will not affect the interest of public at large. Here in this case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nithin Sharma (supra) has held that when the parties are working together in a Company and due to some differences, the respondent filed a complaint, in my opinion, in order to facilitate them to have congenial atmosphere in their office, it is just and necessary to quash the proceedings. Here in this case, both the petitioner and the respondent are colleagues and they were working in the same office. Presently, they are not working in the said office. In view of compounding of the offence and the parties have appeared before the Court and submitted that the proceedings can be quashed, in my view, in order to maintain good relationship between the parties, they should be allowed to compound the offence in

¶30

¶31

respect of Section 354 of IPC and Sections 354(A) and 354(D), which are non-compoundable. Hence, I.A.No.2/2021 is allowed.

¶32

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.

¶33

The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.55237/2020 pending on the file of the XXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Pazhaniyappa Vellumayil v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pazhaniyappa Vellumayil 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Kumar Swamy N R Vs State by

Prabal Ghosh Vs the State of Karnataka

Kamal Jajo Vishwakarma @ Kamal @ Jajo @ Amar Vs State by Koramangala Police

Sri P Ramesh Vs Sri a Murugesh

Mohiddin Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Angappan Vs the State by Challakere Police