Allowed

Akash Raju, S/O. Raju. P.G., v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2021CRL.P/917/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Criminal Petition in part. Court held that offences under compoundable sections of IPC did not affect interest at large. Offences under non-compoundable provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act also liable to be quashed due to amicable settlement on civil dispute regarding property.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner/Accused No.1 by the respondent No.1 Surya Nagar Police Station for the alleged offences are hereby quashed.

Akash Raju, S/O. Raju. P.G., Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.917/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

AKASH RAJU, S/O. RAJU. P.G., AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: ADV., R/AT NO.311/55, 6^TH CROSS, VENKATAPURA, KORAMANGALA 1^ST BLOCK BENGALURU-560 034. …PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI NASIR ALI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SURYANAGAR POLICE, ANEKAL TQ., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. (REPTD. BY SPP, HCK,

¶11

BENGALURU-560 001).

¶12

SMT. RAMAKKA, W/O.YALLAPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT KAGGALIPURA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP, FOR R1; SRI B.J. KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R2.)

¶14

-:2:-

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.399/2019 OF SURYANAGAR P.S. ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 188, 341, 323, 354, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner and respondent No.2 appeared before the Court and filed an application under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC' for short] and submits that they have compounded the offences and prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings. The said application is placed on record.

¶19

-:3:-

¶20

The petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 Cr.PC., for quashing of the FIR registered in Crime No.399/2019 of Suryanagar Police Station, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, for the offence punishable under Sections 188, 341, 323, 354, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1), (r) and (s) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST (POA) Act' for short].

¶21

The Respondent No.2 who is present before the Court submits that the petitioner herein (Accused No.1) is none other than her brother and she has compromised the matter with her brother/petitioner herein. Perused the records.

¶22

It is pertinent to note that, a case was registered by the respondent No.2 in OS NO.307/2019 against the petitioner herein, who is none other than the brother of the respondent No.2 in respect of the property said to have been

¶23

-:4:-

¶24

sold to the petitioner/accused No.1; and in this regard, a criminal case came to be registered against

¶25

petitioner/accused No.1.

¶26

When the matter stood thus, the learned counsel for the parties submits that the matter is settled between the parties amicably in respect of the suit land. Of course, the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504 and 506 of IPC are compoundable but the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST Act, is not compoundable and non bailable offence. In view of the amicable settlement arrived between the parties in a civil dispute; respondent No.2 also submits that there is no issue against the petitioner, who is her brother given her share and the sale proceeds to her, the matter may be closed.

¶27

In the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing the petitioner and respondent No.2 to compound the other offences, it seems that the other offences will not affect the interest at large. Accordingly, in view of the

¶28

-:5:-

¶29

settlement between the parties, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act are also liable to be quashed.

¶30

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part. Consequently, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner/Accused No.1 by the respondent No.1 Surya Nagar Police Station for the alleged offences are hereby quashed.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

PL*

Akash Raju, S/O. Raju. P.G., v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Raju, S/O. Raju. P.G., v. State of Karnataka by

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

Imran Vs the State of Karnataka

Asif Nawaz Khan Vs State by Women Police Station

Rajesh Poojari @ Rajesh @ Ranganath Vs State

Jilani Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath Prasad R Vs Mrs. Swathi S.P.

Lakshmidevamma Vs the State of Karnataka