ABDUL KHUDUS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/accused No. 2 - Sri.Abdul Khudus S/o. Late Abdul Rahim Saheb and his counsel are present before the Court. Learned High Court Government Pleader is present for respondent No. 1. Mr. Syed Eliyaz S/o. Mr. Pasha alias Syed Umar - respondent No. 2 is present before the Court and Kum. Raksha Keerthana K, filed power to respondent No. 2 and is also present before the Court.

(2.) Today they have filed a joint affidavit contending that the petitioner is the landlord of the shop premises bearing No. 5 and the shop measures 180 sq.ft. and also respondent No. 2 is in possession of the said property. It is further contended that at the intervention of well wishers and friends, both the parties have amicably settled the disputes in W.P. No. 25243/2019(GM-CPC) and in terms of the compromise; the said writ petition has been disposed off. One of the terms of settlement in the said compromise is that the criminal petition filed has to be withdrawn. It is further contended that the said compromise is voluntarily without any force, coercion or misrepresentation. Respondent No. 2 is present and submits that he has no objection to quash the complaint dated 12.02.2019. The said compromise joint affidavit has been signed by both the parties i.e., petitioner/accused No. 2 and the respondent No. 2/complainant. 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: