Karnataka High Court Netharavathi S @ Chaithra vs State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2014Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA CRL.P.No.1781/2014
NETHARAVATHI .S @ CHAITHRA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O 1199/6, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 040. … PETITIONER (BY SRI NATARAJ.R, ADV.,)
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BANGALORE -560 064.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA,
R/O 196, SHREKANTH KRUPA,
4TH CROSS, DR.LOWITH ROAD,
HASSAN – 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J.ESWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.25964/2012 PENDING BEFORE THE C.M.M., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 465, 468, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Accused No.3 in C.C. No.25964/2012 pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, has come up in this petition seeking quashing of the proceedings in the said criminal case. Admittedly, the said proceeding is initiated pursuant to a complaint in Crime No.229/2011 registered with Yelahanka Police Station, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. It is seen that the crime No.229/2011 is registered pursuant to a complaint, which is filed by 2nd respondent, N.S. Vishwanath. The matter was investigated by the Police and chargesheet is filed for the said offences against accused Nos.1 to 3. Incidentally, accused No.1 is the husband, accused No.2 is the mother of accused No.1 and accused No.3 is the wife of 1st accused and the complaint is with reference to accused -3-
Nos.1 to 3 passing off a site not belonging to them in favour of the complainant by misrepresenting to him and collecting from him a sum of `.6,00,000/-.
3. The material on record would disclose that the petitioner herein, who is wife of 1st accused and daughter- in-law of 2nd accused is also daughter-in-law of a person, who is an employee of Judicial House Building Co- operative Society (for short, the ‘Society’). It is stated that the father-in-law of petitioner herein with the assistance of his son, 1st accused, is said to have attempted to transfer the property of Society in favour of the 1st accused and on the basis of false and forged documents, accused Nos.1 to 3 along with father of accused No.1 are said to have made an attempt to sell the said property in favour of the complainant, 2nd respondent herein. Hence, a complaint was filed into which, investigation was conducted. Police having found prima facie case, filed a chargesheet, which is registered as criminal case in C.C. No.25964/2012. In the said proceedings, the petitioner herein is accused -4-
No.3. She has come up in this petition seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that she has entered into a settlement with the complainant, 2nd respondent herein. Therefore, accepting the settlement, proceeding in C.C.No.25964/2012 is sought to be quashed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, who has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ((2012) 10 SCC 303). Perused the material available on record. The sum and substance of the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for petitioner taking shelter under the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment is that in view of the fact that parties have entered into settlement, this Court can quash the proceedings, which are initiated against petitioner and her family members in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. On going through the judgment of the Apex Court in Gian Singh`s case (supra), it is seen that the Apex Court has observed that in criminal proceedings, wherein the offences alleged against accused are non- compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., if the offender and victim amicably settle the dispute between themselves, provided the same is with reference to matrimonial matters and financial matters and not relating to heinous offences such as murder, rape, dacoity etc., then the criminal proceedings could be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power. The intention behind the same was to ensure that if the proceeding is under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where financial transaction between the parties has resulted in non-payment of the debts due at a particular point of time, criminal prosecution should not be taken to the logical end where the victims of poverty or other circumstances are made to suffer the conviction for criminal act which they did not intend to do. Also, in respect of matters, where the complaint is filed under -6-
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act or for the offence punishable under Dowry Prohibition Act, or for the offence invoking the provisions of Section 498A of IPC for various reasons, to provide a way out for the parties from the litigation faced by them and to see that they arrive at a settlement, wherein they either start their life afresh together or part their way and live respectful life without any stigma of conviction in such offences, the High Court can in its discretion consider quashing of such proceedings under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. In the aforesaid judgment, it is reiterated as to how High Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings, which are generally not compoundable and cognizable in nature.
6. However, in the instant case, the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC., are with reference to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and forging of documents. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are alleged to have -7-
attempted to pass off a property not belonging to them in favour of 2nd respondent with an intention to defraud him and the said offence is as heinous a crime as which can be equated to non-compoundable offences like rape, dacoity and robbery. Though the offence alleged against petitioner herein has civil flavour, it has all the ingredients of a criminal offence. Therefore, it cannot be considered as an offence with reference to financial matters, wherein parties should be allowed to settle the dispute among themselves, consequently. Taking into consideration the said settlement, the proceedings should be quashed. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that since offence alleged against petitioner herein is with reference to Sections 420, 465 and 468 of IPC., same cannot be equated to an offence, which is in the nature of financial misdemeanour without any criminal intention.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court find that the offence alleged against petitioner – accused No.3 in C.C. No.25964/2012 cannot be equated with the offences -8-
for which an exemption is provided in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Gian Singh`s case.
8. This Court is also of the opinion that by giving the benefit of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment, petitioner herein cannot be permitted to enter into any kind of settlement with the complainant and seek the indulgence of this Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings pending against her.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition filed by accused No.3 in C.C. No.25964/2012 pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, is hereby dismissed.