Chikkeere Gowda and Others vs Javare Gowda and Others

A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.—The petitioners, arraigned as accused in C.C. No. 290/2013, on the file of the JMFC, Pandavapura, Mandya District, filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings of the said case, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 465, 417, 469, 419, 177, 471, 420, 114 r/w 149 IPC.

PCR No. 51/2010 was filed by respondent No. 1 herein, against the petitioners, before the JMFC, Pandavapura. The matter was referred to respondent No. 2 for investigation. Final report having been submitted, cognizance was taken and C.C. No. 290/2013 was registered for the offences, mentioned supra.

Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 are full brothers. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the children of the first petitioner. Petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 are said to be the well wishers of the first petitioner. Petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 are the sureties to the loan transaction of petitioner Nos. 1 to 4, at Canara Bank, Sindagatta Branch. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4, availed loan for the purpose of purchasing a Tractor, by suppressing the partition which had taken place between them and respondent No. 1 herein and by offering the property, which had fallen to the share of respondent No. 1 herein. In connection with the said loan transaction of petitioner Nos. 1 to 4, wherein petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 were the sureties, PCR No. 51/2010 was filed, which has resulted in C.C. No. 290/2013 being registered by the JMFC, Pandavapura.

On 04.03.2015, petitioners and respondent No. 1 were present before the Court and were identified by their learned advocates. They filed an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. and sought permission to compound the offences. Today, learned advocates appearing for the petitioners and respondent No. 1 filed joint affidavit of the petitioners and respondent No. 1 with regard to the relationship between the parties and also the matter having been amicably settled. The petitioners have undertaken not to repeat the acts, which has lead to the said criminal case.

Heard the learned advocates on both sides and perused the record.

In Yogendra Yadav Vs. The State of Jharkhand, , the question which arose before the Apex Court was, whether the Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC, which are non-compoundable? After referring to the decision in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , Apex Court has held as follows:

"4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable. Needless to say that offences which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace."

(emphasis is supplied)

Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and respondent No. 1 being close relatives and as they have stated that there is now harmonious relationship between them and have sought compounding of the offences and that they would abide by the terms of the settlement and also the undertaking given in the joint affidavit filed and as I am convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the peace and tranquility and the quashing of the proceedings would bring peace amongst the petitioners and respondent No. 1, in order to secure the ends of justice, following the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid decision, the proceedings pending before the court below can be quashed.

In the result, petition is allowed and C.C. No. 290/2013, pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura, Mandya District is quashed.