AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.—Based on a complaint of respondent No. 2, a case in Crime No. 183/2010, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, 1860, having been registered by respondent No. 1, seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No. 183/2010 dated 05.06.2010 and the aforesaid complaint and all further proceedings thereto, this petition was filed, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 (for short, ''the Code'').
Respondent No. 2, alleging medical negligence/professional misconduct by the petitioner, had also approached the Karnataka Medical Council, wherein, a case was registered and enquiry in KMC/ENQ/No.15/2010 was initiated. By an order dated 24.01.2013, it was held that the petitioner has committed an ''error of judgment'', amounting to "Medical Negligence". The said order was questioned in Writ Petition No. 7991/2013.
Based on the cause of action, which led to the aforesaid enquiry by the KMC, respondent No. 2 had also filed Consumer Complaint bearing No. 2580/2010 before the IV Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru. The complaint having been allowed, opposite parties therein, including the petitioner, have filed Appeal Nos. 3867/2011 and 3868/2011 before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and the same are pending.
Respondent No. 2 having lodged the complaint, FIR in Crime No. 183/2010 was registered by Siddapura Police on 05.06.2010 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Seeking quashing of the same and further proceedings in pursuance thereof, this petition was filed.
A Joint Memo dated 08.12.2014 was filed by the petitioner and respondent, through their learned advocates.
Writ Petition No. 7991/2013 was allowed on 08.12.2014, on the basis of the Joint Memo filed therein by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 herein - contesting party and thus, the impugned order dated 24.01.2013 passed by the KMC, in Enquiry No. 15/2010 has been set aside. A memo dated 09.12.2014 was filed by the learned advocate for the petitioner furnishing the information relating to the disposal of Writ Petition No. 7991/2013.
In the Joint Memo dated 08.12.2014, respondent No. 2 has stated that he has no objection to allow this petition and quash the case registered in Crime No. 183/2010 by Siddapura Police Station and all further proceedings thereto.
In view of the above, the question before this Court is: "Whether this Court can compound the offence under Section 304-A of IPC, which is non compoundable?"
Courts draw power for compounding the offence from Section 320 of the Code. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , Apex Court has held that the said provision has to be strictly followed. However, it has been made clear, that in a given case, High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and victim has no objection, even though the offence is non-compoundable. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape and murder cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings, since the same will have harmful effect on the society. However, if the Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore, do not affect the public peace or tranquility and if the Court feels that quashing of the said offence on account of compromise would bring about the peace and would secure ends of justice, in such cases, allowing the prosecution being waste of time and energy and would also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace, the Court can quash the proceedings. Relevant portion is extracted hereinbelow:
"54. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor."
Sri Sandesh J. Chouta and Sri M. Rajashekar, learned advocates, appearing for the petitioner and respondent No. 2 respectively, submitted that the impugned proceedings be quashed by taking the Joint Memo dated 08.12.2014 on record. In the said Joint Memo, it has been stated as follows:--
"2. On the intervention of well wishers and in order to attain quietus to all the pending litigations, the parties to these litigations have come forward for an amicable settlement to be reduced in writing in pending Appeal No. 3867/2011 c/w 3868/2011 before the Hon''ble State Commission which is now posted on 09.12.2014.
It is agreed upon between the parties that the Complainant Mr. S. Murthy does not intend prosecuting Criminal Complaint registered in FIR No. 183/2010 registered by Siddapura PS any further.
It is also agreed upon between the parties that the Complainant Mr. S. Murthy does not intend further prosecution of order dated 24.01.2013 passed by the Karnataka Medical Council (KMC) in Enquiry No. 15/2010, pending consideration in Writ Petition No. 7991/2013.
In view of the same, the Complainant has no objection to allow the Writ Petition No. 7991/2013 thereby quashing order dated 24.01.2013 passed by the Karnataka Medical Council (KMC) in Enquiry No. 15/2010.
So also the complainant does not have any objection for the Hon''ble High Court to allow the present Criminal Petition No. 901/2013 and quash all further proceeding registered in Crime No. 183/2010 by Siddapura PS, for alleged offence punishable u/s. 304-A of the Penal Code."
Learned advocates for the petitioner and respondent No. 2 submitted that deceased Girish, son of respondent No. 2/Complainant, was a longstanding patient, having taking treatment from the petitioner for the last more than 20 years. Undisputedly, the petitioner is a qualified and experienced General Surgeon and at the relevant point of time was working at Bengaluru Hospital, which is a multi specialty hospital. Order passed by the KMC on 24.01.2013, questioned in Writ Petition No. 7991/2013 has been set aside by allowing the said writ petition on 08.12.2014.
Learned advocates submitted that petitioner and respondent No. 2 have entered into a settlement, even in respect of the appeals pending before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Keeping in view the Joint Memo dated 08.12.2014 and the Memo filed by learned advocate for the petitioner on 09.12.2014 and also the submissions made by Mr. Sandesh J. Chowta and Sri M. Rajashekar, learned advocates for the parties, alleged offence for which the case was registered being entirely personal and if compounded, would not affect the public peace or tranquility and as the compromise arrived at would bring about peace between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and would also secure the ends of justice, I deem it just to accept the compromise arrived at between the parties.
As a result, FIR in Crime No. 183/2010 dated 05.06.2010 pending on the file of CMM, Bengaluru and the aforesaid complaint of respondent No. 2 are quashed. Petition is allowed accordingly.