Karnataka High Court
Nagappa vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 19 July, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5131
CRL.P No. 200781 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 200781 OF 2024 (482)
BETWEEN:
NAGAPPA S/O BHODEPPA MADIVAL
AGE: 28 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. SANNA SAMBRA VILLAGE
TQ: GURUMATKAL
DIST: YADGIRI-585 315.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
Digitally SAIDAPUR POLICE STATION, SAIDAPUR
signed by NOW REPRESENTED BY
SHILPA R
TENIHALLI THE ADDITIONAL STATE
Location: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH
COURT OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH-585 102.
2. YALLAMMA W/O SANNA BABU
AGE: 55 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O. SANNA SAMBRA VILLAGE
TQ: GURUMATKAL
DIST: YADIGIR-585 315.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1:
SRI SHRIHARSH HARWAL, ADV.)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5131
CRL.P No. 200781 of 2024
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO,
SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED
23.05.2023 PASSED IN SPL.C NO.49/2023 IN CRIME NO.
26/2023 IN CRIME NO.26/2023 SAIDAPUR P.S. YADGIRI, BY
THE HON'BLE DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, YADGIRI FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS. 373(3), 376(2)(N), 323,
504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 6 OF POCSO ACT-2012 AND
SEC. 3(1)(W)(I AND II) 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(V-A), 3(2)(V) OF
SC/ST P.A ACT. 1989, INSOFAR, AS THE PETITIONER/A-3 (AS
PER CHARGE SHEET IS CONCERNED) NOW PENDING ON THE
FILE OF HON'BLE DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE YADGIR IN
SPL.CASE NO.49/2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION HIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Accused no.3 is before this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings as against him in Spl.C.No.49/2023 pending before the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Yadgir, arising out of Crime No.26/2023 registered by Saidapur Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 376(2)(n), 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO Act'), and Section 3(1)(w)(i & ii), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'SC/ST Act').
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. -3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5131 CRL.P No. 200781 of 2024
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondent no.2 who is the mother of the victim girl, jointly submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled at the intervention of elders and well- wishers of the parties. They submit that the settlement between the parties is out of own volition, without there being any coercion or undue influence. Petitioner/accused no.3 has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act. The charges against the petitioner are private in nature. The settlement between the parties is voluntary and since the parties intend to give a quietus to their dispute, they have filed an application under Section 320 of Cr.PC seeking permission of this Court to permit them to compound the offences for which the petitioner has been charge sheeted.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that the petitioner has been charge sheeted for non-compoundable offences, and therefore, the prayer made in the application cannot be granted.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5131 CRL.P No. 200781 of 2024
5. The application filed by the petitioner and respondent no.2 under Section 320 Cr.PC is taken on record. The said application is supported by the joint affidavit of the petitioner and respondent no.2. In paragraphs 2 to 4 of the said affidavit, it is stated as under:
"02. We state that, since we have settled the dispute amicably between us, no purpose would be served if the proceedings are continued against the petitioner/Accused No.3 and continuation of proceedings against accused no.3 would result in wastage of previous judicial time.
03. Hence we pray that impugned proceedings to compound the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376(2) of Indian Penal Code and U/s 6 of POCSO Act and U/S 3(1) (r)(s)(w), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST РА АСТ 1989 now pending on the file of Hon'ble District & Session Judge at Yadgir in Spl.Case No.49/2023 (arising out of Crime No.26/2023 of Saidapur Police Station).
04. Hence, it is most humbly prayed to allow the accompanying application as prayed for and be pleased quash the proceedings in Spl.Case.49/2023 ( Crime No.26/2023) pending on the file of Hon'ble District & Session Judge at Yadgir, in the interest of justice."
6. From a perusal of the charge sheet in the present case, it is seen that the allegations against the petitioner is that he -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5131 CRL.P No. 200781 of 2024 along with accused no.2 had abused respondent no.2 herein referring to her caste and also had slapped her. From the allegations against the petitioner in the charge sheet, it is very clear that the said allegations are private and not grave in nature.
7. The parties who are before this Court are identified by their respective advocates and the parties have stated before the Court that the settlement reported is voluntary without there being any coercion or undue influence.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMGOPAL AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - AIR 2022 (14) SCC 531 has observed that notwithstanding the limitations provided under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash criminal proceedings registered for non-compoundable offences considering the nature of allegations, gravity of offence and the nature of settlement arrived at between the parties.
9. In the case of RAMAWATAR VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 2021 INSC 664, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 15 & 16, has observed as under: -6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5131 CRL.P No. 200781 of 2024 "15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper castes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twinfold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste based atrocities.
16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5131 CRL.P No. 200781 of 2024 prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special statute' would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C."
10. From a reading of the allegations found in the charge sheet, it is seen that the allegations of abusing respondent no.2 referring to her caste is jointly made as against accused nos.2 & 3 and such an allegation is not directly made only as against accused no.3. Accused no.2 is the father of accused no.1, whereas accused no.3 is a distant relative of accused nos.1 & 2. The allegation of committing sexual assault on the victim girl is only as against accused no.1. Except the offences punishable under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, the other offences for which accused no.3 is charge sheeted are all bailable and compoundable in nature.
11. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that in order to do complete justice to the parties, in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, the prayer made in the -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5131 CRL.P No. 200781 of 2024 petition requires to be granted. Accordingly, the following order:
12. Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings as against the petitioner/accused no.3 in Spl.C.No.49/2023 pending before the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Yadgir, arising out of Crime No.26/2023 registered by Saidapur Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act, is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK