BADARI DATTA H.C. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-accused No.1 Dr.Badari Datta H.C., consultant, ENT Surgeon, petitioner-accused No.2 Dr.Jayashree, consultant Anesthesiologist, the learned Additional SPP are present. Mr.Srinath R.K. has filed Vakalath for respondent No.2. They have filed joint memo dated 5.4.2019. In the said joint memo it has been contended that the parties have reached out of Court settlement vide compromise deed dated 20.06.2018. Respondent No.2-complainant received an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation and it has been further submitted that he has no grievance whatsoever against the petitioners. It is further contended that the subject matter is of a civil nature and the instant complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioners due to emotional outburst consequent upon the loss/death of son of respondent No.2 while he was under treatment of petitioners. The instant complaint was based on false, prejudicial and misconceived facts and grounds rather than on rational and realistic grounds. The complainant has now realized and appreciated the truth about the bonafide treatment rendered by the doctors and ready and willing to voluntarily withdraw the complaint filed against the petitioners. On these grounds they prayed to quash the criminal proceedings.

(2.) The said joint memo has been signed by petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.2- complainant and the same has been endorsed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The joint memo and the affidavit has been placed on record. When the Court questioned respondent No.2-complainant he submits that the said facts which have been mentioned in the joint memo are true and correct and it is not under pressure or undue influence. At this juncture, it is worth to mention here itself a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.Ramesh Kamath and Others v. Mohana Kurupt and Others, reported in (2016) 12 SCC 179, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles as to under what circumstances the Court can quash the proceedings or compound the offences even in respect of a non-compoundable offences, wherein it has been held as under:-

(3.) The Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the principles of law laid down in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it has been observed that the Court can exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and compound the offence. In the case of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, it has been observed as under: