Karnataka High Court
Basappa @ Basanagowda vs State Of Karnataka By Jayapura Police on 28 October, 2005
Equivalent citations: I(2006)DMC605, ILR2005KAR5997, 2006(5)KARLJ303, 2006 (1) AIR KAR R 295
Author: N.S. Veerabhadraiah
Bench: N.S. Veerabhadraiah
ORDER N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.
1. This revision is by the accused being aggrieved of the judgment in Crl. A. No. 111/2003 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Mysore allowing the appeal in part by modifying the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months as against the judgment in CC No. 820/2000 on the file of the JMFC, II Court, Mysore dated 31.07.2003 convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and for the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code. The learned JMFC, II Court, Mysore recorded a finding of guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and further sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code. The said conviction and sentence was questioned in Crl. A. No. 111/2003. The learned Judge of the Fast Track Court by reappreciating the testimony of the prosecution witnesses though it was submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise having confirmed the conviction reduced the sentence of one year to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. It is this order, which is questioned in the present Criminal Revision Petition.
3. When the matter come up for admission, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent submitted that the accused-petitioner Basappa and his wife-complainant Nagamma in person and reports that they have amicably settled the matter and also files an application under Section 320(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Learned Counsel for both sides relies on the Judgment in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., ILR 2003 KAR 1785 and submits that in matrimonial dispute, it is open for the High Court to exercise inherent powers and to permit the parties to compound the offence.
5. In the present case, Section 498-A is not incorporated under Section 320 Clause (1) or under Clause (2). But whereas the State amendment of Andhra Pradesh in their State amendment of Section 498A is compoundable under Section 320 Sub Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though it is in the Andhra Pradesh State amendment, keeping in mind the decision rendered by the Apex Court in ILR 2003 KAR 1785 when the husband and wife having appeared before this Court and having submitted that they have no difference and they having two small male kids, it is not appropriate for this Court to send the accused behind the bars when it is purely a matrimonial dispute. Taking into consideration the facts of this case and the submissions made by the accused and his wife, I feel that it is a fit case to permit the parties to compound the offence so that they can lead a happy married life without giving any room for further dispute.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this Criminal Re vision Petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned JMFC for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed thereon and the judgment of the First Appellate Court are hereby set aside in view of the fact that the parties have compounded the offence. Accordingly the application is allowed and the accused-petitioner is acquitted of the charges under Section 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The application filed shall form part and parcel of the records.