Allowed

Yaseen. M. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2024CRL.P/621/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing petition by accused in a case involving IPC, IT Act and SC/ST (POA) Act offences. Parties filed a joint compromise application to compound the offences; the court allowed it and permitted compounding, quashing all criminal proceedings against petitioners Nos.1-3.

What did the court decide?

Compounding of offences permitted; criminal proceedings and charge sheet against petitioner Nos.1-3 in Spl.C.No.1172/2023 quashed.

Yaseen. M. Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:5295 CRL.P No. 621 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 621 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

YASEEN M

¶10

S/O MOHAMMED SHAFI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶11

MOHAMMED SHAFI S/O ABDULLA SATTHAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶12

ZAREENA BEGUM S/O MOHAMMED SHAFI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by BHAVANI BAI G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT NO.71/1, JYOTHI NAGAR, VAJJARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, NELAMANGALA TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL - 562 123.

¶15

(BY SRI. SUNIL S. NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶19

BY NELAMANGALA RURAL PS - 562 123. REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

RAJESHWARI D/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT MYNAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI,

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:5295 CRL.P No. 621 of 2024

¶23

NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL - 562 123.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA A., HCGP FOR R1/STATE; SRI. RAMU V., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, VIDE SPL.C.NO.1172/2023 IN CR.NO.170/2023 (ANNEXURE A AND B) REGISTERED BY THE NELAMANGALA RURAL P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 504, 506, 354(B), (C) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.66(E), 67(A) OF I.T ACT AND SEC.3(1)(w) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2^ND ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL BENGALURU.

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in Spl.C.No.1172/2023 arising out of Crime No.170/2023 registered by Nelamangala Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354(B) and (C) read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 66(E) and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST (POA) Act')

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:5295 CRL.P No. 621 of 2024

¶32

During pendency of the petition, both petitioners and respondent No.2 appeared before the Court along with their counsels and filed joint compromise application on I.A.No.2/2024 under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to compound the offences.

¶33

Both petitioners and respondent No.2 are said to be

¶34

of same village and submits that they want to live peacefully by settling their issues. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the I.A.No.2/2024 is allowed. The parties are permitted to compound the offences.

¶35

Consequently, the petition is allowed . The criminal proceedings against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in Spl.C.No.1172/2023 arising out of Crime No.170/2023 registered by Nelamangala Rural Police Station, is hereby quashed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

GBB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77 CT:SK

Yaseen. M. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yaseen. M. 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

Sri. Vijay @ Viji Vs State of Karnataka

Shahabaz Vs State of Karnataka

Aneesudheen Ahmed K M Vs State of Karnataka

Nirmala B Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. K. Gowri Vs Mohan K.L.

Y H Prathap Reddy @ Y H Prathap Vs M/S Vijayas Ventures Pvt. Ltd.