Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 828
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
D M RAMU – Appellant
Versus
STATE BY – Respondent
CRL.P 924 of 2025
The court permitted the quashing of non-compoundable offences under IPC due to a legitimate compromise between the parties, despite initial objections regarding the nature of the offences.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 468, 471, 420, 120
(B) - Petition to quash proceedings initiated by the Magistrate against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences - Joint application filed by petitioners and complainant stating that the matter has been settled and the complainant is not willing to continue with the case - The alleged offences were deemed non-compoundable, necessitating court permission to compound the offences. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Compromise - The court recognized the validity of the compromise reached between the parties, leading to the quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners. (Paras 3-4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash the order taking cognizance of offences under IPC sections due to a compromise reached with the complainant, who was a family member. The petitioners were attesting witnesses and claimed no benefits from the alleged fraudulent actions.
Findings of Court:
The court accepted the compromise and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners, recognizing the settlement as legitimate.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the court should permit the compounding of non-compoundable offences based on the parties' compromise.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in light of the compromise and the complainant's withdrawal of the case, the proceedings could be quashed, despite the offences being non-compoundable.
Result: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:-
"Wherefore, the petitioners above named humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:-
a) Set aside the order dated 30.05.2015 passed by IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C. No.13871/2015, thereby taking cognizance of the offences punishable under section 468, 471, 420, 120(B) of I.P.C. and issuance of process against the petitioners as per Annexure-A and further all proceedings, consequently quash the charge sheet Annexure-D, now pending on the file of V Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, by allowing this criminal petition and;
b) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners–accused Nos.4 and 5 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 – de facto complainant have filed a Joint application - I.A.No.1/2025 along with Affidavit of respondent No.2. Same are taken on record.
3. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.2 and their learned counsel are physically present before the Court and they admit the contents of application and the Affidavit which read as under:-
"APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 R/W 320 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The petitioners and respondent No.2 above named begs to submit as follows:
1. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2015 passed by the IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.13871/2015 thereby taking the cognizance punishable under Section 468 , 471, 420, 120(B) of I.P.C. and issuance of process against them and all further proceedings, the petitioners present 146(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and report.
2. The Petitioners further submitted that the Respondent No.2 lodge a private complaint before the learned Magistrate and the same was registered as PCR No. 1763/2011 and afterwards the matter was referred to the respondent No.1 police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and report.
3. The petitioners further submitted that on reference for investigation, the respondent No.1 police registered a case against the persons in Cr.No.310/2011 for the offences punishable under Section 420 , 463, 464, 468, 470 and 471 R/w 34 of I.P.C. and after completion of investigation submitted a charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sec. 468 , 471 , 420 , 120(B) of IPC .
4. The petitioners further submitted that on submission of charge sheet the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the charge sheeted offence and process issued against the accused persons and charge has been framed against the accused persons and CW1 was secured examined and party cross examined and deferred for further cross examination.
5. The petitioners and respondent No.2 further submitted that during the pendency of investigation the accused No.1 and 3 expired after submission of charge sheet the case against A1 to A3 abated.
6. The petitioners further submitted that they are attesting witnesses to alleged palupatti and they are not beneficiaries under palupatti.
7. The petitioners and respondent no.2 further submitted that after partly cross examination of PW1/CW1 at the intervention of well-wishers and elders in the family issues between family members of A2 i.e., second wife of accused no.2 and another and the complainant and another matter has been settled under fresh registered Partition Deed dated 12.04.2024 and the complainant share has been given to the complainant. Hence, the Respondent No.2 got his share and he is not willing to continue the case against the petitioners before the trial court. Hence, this compromise application for kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court.
8. The respondent no.2 further submitted that the of accused no.1 is the wife of his brother and accused no.2 and 3 are his brothers and accused no.1 to 3 are no more and second wife of accused no.2 and another gave his share i
