Allowed

P. Arjun G Shenoy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024CRL.P/761/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.PC by accused No.7 in a kidnapping and assault case. Parties filed a compounding application stating amicable settlement; the court held continued prosecution would be futile and an abuse of process, quashing proceedings qua petitioner.

What the court decided

AI extract

P. Arjun G Shenoy Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11084 CRL.P No. 761 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 761 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

P. ARJUN G SHENOY, S/O P.N. GIRISH SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT NO.F6, 1ST FLOOR, LEEWAY ENCLAVE, SHANMUGA LAYOUT, HOSAPALYA, BOMMANAHALLI POST, BANGALORE - 560 019, M.NO. 8971133323.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MITTY NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

PRASHANTH C., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O K. CHANDRAIAH, R/AT 10, LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA, M.S.PALYA, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 014.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. GANESH M., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.4036/2023 (CR.NO.13/2023 OF THALAGHATTAPURA P.S.) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363, 323, 504, 506, 149, 109 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE RURAL, BANGALORE IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7.

¶15

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

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11084 CRL.P No. 761 of 2024

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that on 12.01.2023, accused Nos.3 and 4 called the de-facto complainant stating that there was a beauty parlour for sale at Yelahanka and when they went to the parlour, at that time, accused Nos.3 and 4 closed the doors of the parlour and caused harm to respondent No.2 by hitting him with bare hands. Later, accused No.3 called accused No.5 and informed that the de-facto complainant is at parlour and that he can take respondent No.2 within half an hour. Accused No.5 and Srikanth reached the parlour and nabbed respondent No.2. Accused No.5 and Srikanth abducted respondent No.2 in their car. Later, on seeing the police, respondent No.2 started shouting for help and when the police came, the accused escaped in their two wheeler and four wheeler.

¶20

The petitioner/Accused No.7 and the de-facto complainant are present before this Court and have filed an application for compounding stating that they have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves, and accused No.7 was not involved in the crime, and to maintain cordial relationship, respondent No.2/de-facto complainant has agreed to withdraw all the allegations, and has no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings, insofar as it relates to the petitioner herein.

¶21

The said application is placed on record.

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11084 CRL.P No. 761 of 2024

¶23

Though the offences alleged are cognizable and non compoundable, however, having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves and in terms of the settlement, respondent No.2 having agreed to withdraw all the allegations, it would be a futile exercise, if the petitioner is subjected to trial, since the probability of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak, in view of settlement. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

i. Criminal petition is allowed .

¶26

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.4036/2023 on the file of II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, insofar as it relates to the petitioner herein i.e., accused No.7, stands quashed.

¶27

Accordingly, I.A.No.2/2024 for compounding is allowed.

¶28

In view of the disposal of the petition, pending I.A. does not survive for consideration and it is disposed of.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

BNV

¶31

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

P. Arjun G Shenoy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

P. Arjun G Shenoy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.P. Sharvani Vs Mrs. Shabanas Abdul Jaleel

Pattabhiramaiah Vs Rajanna

Sri. Seenappa Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Sri K T Srinivash Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

R Venkatachalapathi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

V Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka