Allowed

Sri B N Govindappa v. the State by Bagalgunte Police

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2022WP/160/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings and impugned orders regarding Section 307 IPC charges. Citing settlement between parties and the Apex Court's guidelines, the Court observed that injuries were simple in nature and allowed the closure of the case.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and criminal petition were disposed of, and the impugned order dated 27.11.2020, proceedings in C.C.No.17022/2020, and S.C.No.39/2019 were quashed.

Sri B N Govindappa Vs the State by Bagalgunte Police — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 160 of 2022

¶3

C/W CRL.P No. 5524 of 2022

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 160 OF 2022 (GM-RES) C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5524 OF 2022

¶9

IN W.P.NO.160 OF 2022

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. B.N. GOVINDAPPA, S/O. LATE GORULUNARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.6/3, 4^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, SRIKANTESHWARANGAR, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BANGALORE - 560 096

¶14

SRI. B.N. SRINIVASA, S/O. LATE GORULUNARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4, 2^ND CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, SRIKANTESHWARANAGAR, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 096

¶15

SRI. G. SANTOSH, S/O. B.N. GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.6/3, 4^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, SRIKANTESHWARANAGAR MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT

¶16

¶17

WP No. 160 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 5524 of 2022

¶18

BANGALORE - 560 096.

¶19

SRI. ANIL KUMAR G., S/O. LATE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.73, 4^TH MAIN, MARUTHINAGAR KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 079.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. SATISH .K., ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE STATE BY BAGALGUNTE POLICE, REPRESENTED BY SUB-INSPECTOR OFF POLICE, BANGALORE - 560 073.

¶24

SRI. OM SUMAN JANA, S/O. UTTAM JANA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.20/3, ANJANADRI NAGAR 7^TH CROSS, SHETTIHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 015

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. R. HEMANTH RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.27.11.2020 PASSED IN PCR NO.3183/2020 BY THE HON'BLE XXXI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-L) AN IMPUGNED

¶28

¶29

WP No. 160 of 2022

¶30

C/W

¶31

CRL.P No. 5524 of 2022

¶32

PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.17022/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE XXXI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE ANNEXURE-K.

¶33

IN CRL.P.NO. 5524 OF 2022

¶34

BETWEEN:

¶35

MR. OM SUMAN S/O. UTTAM JANA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO. 20/3, ANJANADRINAGAR, 7^TH CROSS, SHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 015.

¶36

(BY SRI. R. HEMANTH RAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAGALAGUNTE PS, BANGALORE, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶39

MR. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A NO. 73, 4^TH MAIN, MARUUTHI EXTENSION, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 079.

…PETITIONER

…RESPONDENTS

WP No. 160 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 5524 of 2022

¶44

(BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH HCGP FOR R1, SRI. SATISH .K., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶45

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-61) IN S.C.NO.39/2019 AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER AS PRODUCED IN THIS PETITION AS ANNEXURE-A AND C.

¶46

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 4 in Writ petition No.160/2022 are before this Court calling in question order dated 27.11.2020 passed in PCR No.3183/2018, by the XXXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and the proceedings in C.C.No.17022/2020 and petitioner in Criminal Petition No.5524/2022 is calling in question proceedings in S.C.No.39/2019, pending before the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶49

Heard Sri Satish K., learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.160/2022 and the respondent in

¶50

¶51

WP No. 160 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 5524 of 2022

¶52

Crl.P.No.5524/2022, Sri R. Hemanth Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5524/2022 and respondent No.2 in W.P.No.160/2022 and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

¶53

Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of these petitions, as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

¶54

A complaint is registered by respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.5524/2022 – Anil Kumar, against the petitioner in W.P.No.160/2022 – Om Suman Jana, alleging offences punishable under Sections 307 and 353 of the IPC, which becomes a crime in Crime No.23/2018 and is presently pending as S.C.No.39/2019. The proceedings emanates from registration of a crime on account of registration of a private complaint by Om Suman Jana against the petitioners in PCR No.3183/2018 for offences under Sections 307, 324, 326, 448, 506B r/w. 147 of the IPC and a reference being made by the learned Magistrate for

¶55

¶56

WP No. 160 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 5524 of 2022

¶57

investigation by the jurisdictional police under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. The police after investigation have filed a ‘B’ report. The learned Magistrate while considering the ‘B’ report and a protest petition filed by Om Suman Jana to the ‘B’ report filed by the police, rejects the ‘B’ report and takes cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 506 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC, by his order dated 27.11.2020. It is calling in question the said order, the petitioners are before this Court in W.P.No.160/2022.

¶58

The other petition – Crl.P.No.5524/2022 arose out

¶59

of very same incident registered by the petitioner - Om Suman Jana. The allegations in this petition is for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 307 of the IPC. The police in this case have after investigation filed a charge sheet which is now pending in S.C.No.39/2019.

¶60

During the pendency of this petition, the parties to the lis have entered into compromise and file a compromise

¶61

¶62

WP No. 160 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 5524 of 2022

¶63

petition seeking compounding of the offences and closure of the proceedings.

¶64

In the light of the offences so alleged, it becomes necessary to consider whether the proceedings could be closed on account of compromise entered into between the parties. The appellate Court in the case of THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS LAXMI NARAYAN AND

¶65

OTHERS reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein it has laid down the parameters of closing the proceedings initiated for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, on account of the settlement arrived at between the parties. The Apex Court has held as follows:

¶66

“15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

¶67

15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of

¶68

¶69

WP No. 160 of 2022 CRL.P No. 5524 of 2022

¶70

C/W

¶71

commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

¶72

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

¶73

15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

¶74

15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is

¶75

¶76

WP No. 160 of 2022

¶77

C/W

¶78

CRL.P No. 5524 of 2022

¶79

framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

¶80

15.5 [Ed. : Para 15.5 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./22/2019 dated 3-42019.] . While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is

¶81

10 -

¶82

WP No. 160 of 2022

¶83

C/W CRL.P No. 5524 of 2022

¶84

required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc.”

¶85

The Apex Court at para No.15.4 as afore-extracted holds that the High Court while exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., should not rest its decision merely of the mention of Section 307 of the IPC. The Court will have to look into the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used and such an exercise would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed or charge is framed or the matter being on trial.

¶86

It is not in dispute that the police have filed the charge sheet in PCR. No.3183/2018 and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and registered a crime for the aforesaid offence in C.C.No.17022/2020.

¶87

11 -

¶88

WP No. 160 of 2022 CRL.P No. 5524 of 2022

¶89

Therefore, the stage of investigation is over in the case at hand. The Apex Court in the afore-quoted order issues guidelines for closure of a case on its settlement and directs a Court to examine the injuries inflicted and nature of injuries sustained by the parties. Section 307 of the IPC is invoked in S.C.No.39/2019 and if the wound certificate is considered, which depicts all the injuries sustained by the victim – Om Suman Jana, which are only simple in nature. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court that the injuries being simple in nature, there cannot be no impediment to accept the settlement and close the proceedings against the petitioners on the complaint registered by Om Suman Jana.

¶90

7. Insofar as the complaint against Om Suman Jana,

¶91

the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable as quoted hereinabove. It is not in dispute that the police after investigation have filed a ‘B’ report in the matter. It is on the protest petition of Om

¶92

12 -

¶93

WP No. 160 of 2022 CRL.P No. 5524 of 2022

¶94

C/W

¶95

Suman Jana, the Court takes cognizance against Om Suman Jana and others, who are complainants against each other and have now entered into settlement for closure of the dispute.

¶96

The parties have filed memorandum of settlement/compromise petition filed under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India along with supporting affidavits by the respective parties, duly sworn by them to the contents of the compromise petition, seeking compounding the offences and compromise in both these petitions. It is germane to extract one of the memoranda of settlement/compromise petitions, filed by the parties. The relevant paragraph of memorandum of settlement filed in Crl.P.No.5524/2022, reads as follows:

¶97

“ MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT/COMPROMISE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 320 READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. AND ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR COMPOUNDING AND

¶98

COMPROMISE

¶99

13 -

¶100

WP No. 160 of 2022

¶101

CRL.P No. 5524 of 2022

¶102

2) It is submitted that the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 submit that both of them are from a respectable family and deep rooted in the society. Due to the impugned proceedings, both of them are unable to carry out their respective occupation peacefully. The Respondent No.2 is Government Servant working in the disciplinary force namely, Department of Home. With the intervention of elders and well wishers, the Respondent No.2 has come forward to compromise with the Petitioner. In view of the settlement arrived, they no longer intend to continue the proceedings challenged in the above Criminal Petition. As such Complainant – Respondent No.2 is not inclined to prosecute the impugned proceedings in S.C.No.39/2019 pending on the file of LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.”

¶103

Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgments and memoranda of settlement entered into between the parties in both the petitions, I deem it appropriate to accept the same and close the proceedings impugned in both these petitions.

¶104

14 -

¶105

WP No. 160 of 2022 CRL.P No. 5524 of 2022

¶106

C/W

¶107

9.For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶108

ORDER

¶109

i. The writ petition and criminal petition are disposed.

¶110

ii. The order dated 27.11.2020 passed in PCR No.3183/2018, by the XXXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and the proceedings in C.C.No.17022/2020, in W.P.No.160/2022 and proceedings in S.C.No.39/2019, pending before the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Criminal Petition No.5524/2022, stand quashed.

¶111

Sd/JUDGE

¶112

NVJ

Sri B N Govindappa v. the State by Bagalgunte Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B N Govindappa v. the State by Bagalgunte Police

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

Smt B S Susheela Ramamurthy Vs Smt C Devi

Smt B S Susheela Ramamurthy Vs Sri K S Kaushik

Smt. Chandrakala Vs the State of Karnataka

Apsar Pasha Vs the State by Pulikeshinagar Police Station

Sri Sanyam Gulati Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Jagadeesha Vs State of Karnataka