SHEKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and 2nd respondent are present before this Court. Sri. G.N. Narasammanavar, Advocate files power for Respondent No.2. The learned Counsel submits compromise petition under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the photographs of the complainant and the accused along with xerox copies of their identity cards issued by Election Commission of India.

(2.) IT is submitted in the compromise petition that Old Hubli Police have registered a case in Crime No. 201/2013 against the petitioner herein on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and subsequently charge sheet has been laid in C.C. No. 339/2014 under sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are full blooded brothers and in fact due to some misunderstanding in the family dispute, the above said criminal complaint came to be lodged and during the pendency of the criminal case, the parties have compounded the same. In fact, they have made an application before the Trial Court under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. On after coming to know that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to compound the offences under Section 320(1)(2). Therefore, the petitioner in order to set right the entire dispute between himself and the 2nd respondent filed this criminal petition seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No.339/2014.

(3.) I have carefully perused the charge sheet papers. The learned High Court Government Pleader strenuously submits that the offences are non compoundable in nature. Therefore, exercising the powers under Section 482 this Court virtually steps into the shoes of the Trial Court and virtually compound the offence by quashing the proceedings. On careful perusal of the complaint averments, it is crystal clear that the petitioner No.1 being the accused and respondent No.2 is the injured victim before the Trial Court as per the charge sheet papers. There is no dispute and it is also very well elucidated from the records that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are full blooded brothers. It is categorically stated in the petition that due to some family misunderstanding complaint came to be lodged and subsequently, at the instance and advise of the well wishers and elders of the family the parties have entered into compromise. Therefore, by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. this Court can quash the proceedings. It is worth to note a decision of the Apex Court between Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 10 SCC 303. The Apex Court has categorised which are the cases the Court can quash the proceedings on the compromise entered into between the parties, which reads as follows :