Karnataka High Court
Ambareesh S/O Lt Venkataswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 August, 2015
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy
Bench: C.R. Kumaraswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.R. KUMARASWAMY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.366 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
SRI.AMBAREESH
SON OF LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT CHANNASANDRA
EXTENSION, KADUGODI
BANGALORE-560 067 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
MYLARAIAH ASSOCIATES-ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KADUGODI POLICE STATION
BANGALORE DISTRICT ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.B.J.ESWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT
PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE ORDER DATED:05.03.2010 PASSED BY THE
2
PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-III, BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.246/2009
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC, THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 SENTENCED TO UNDERGO
S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AND FINE OF
RS.10,000/- IN DEFAULT, FURTHER HE SHALL UNDERGO
S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS, FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498A OF IPC, THE DEFAULT SENTENCE SHALL RUN
SEPARATELY AFTER THE EXPIRY OF MAIN SENTENCE OF
IMPRISONMENT OF TWO YEARS.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appellant-Accused and his Counsel is present. Complainant is one Chandrakala. She is also present.
2. The State is represented by Kadugodi Police Station. On behalf of the State, learned High Court Government Pleader is present.
3. An application under Section 320[2] of Cr.PC is filed by Accused Ambareesh and his wife M.G. Chandrakala. The petition under Section 320[2] of Cr.PC reads as under: 3
"The above named Appellant and complainant Smt.Chandrakala M.G. begs to submit as follows:
1. That the Appellant and the complainant Smt.Chandrakala M.G. are husband and wife respectively. The Appellant is before this Hon'ble court in the above appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment, conviction and sentence dated:05.03.2010, passed in S.C.No.246/2009, passed by the learned Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section-498A IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000-00 and in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months.
2. That the Appellant and the complainant Smt.Chandrakala M.G at the instances of the close relatives and friends among themselves resolved their matrimonial dispute and Appellant and his wife are agreed and started residing together at the matrimonial house at Channasandra village, Kadugodi post, Bangalore-560 067. After such compromise both had a female child namely Chaithra Gandha on 8.5.2013. Now, the Appellant and his wife are leading happy marital life.
3. The Appellant and complainant Smt.Chandrakala M.G may be permitted to compromise the above matter and to acquit the Appellant in S.C.No.246/2009, passed by the learned Fast Track Court -III, Bangalore Rural District, for the offence punishable under Section-4
498A IPC. Otherwise, the Appellant will be put to greater hardship and injustice and loss and damage.
WHEREFORE, the Appellant and complainant Smt.Chandrakala M.G may be permitted to compromise in S.C.No.246/2009, passed by the learned Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District, for the offence punishable under Section-498A IPC and thereby acquit the Appellant, in the interest of justice and equity".
4. Wife of the Accused Smt. M.G. Chandrakala submits that she has condoned the acts and omissions of her husband Sri. Ambareesh. After they were re-united, child is also born and her name is 'Chaithra Gandha', who is aged about two years.
5. In 'RAMJI LAL AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA' reported in [1983] 1 SCC 368, the head note reads as under:
"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 320-Composition granted- Offence under Sections 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 34, IPC-Victim voluntarily entering into a composition to restore friendly and good neighbourly relations with the accused and rejecting compensation offer- In view of the chastened attitude of the accused and commendable attitude of 5 the victim in order to restore harmony in society, composition acceptable.
Paragraph-5 of the Judgment reads as under:
"5. All the offences for which the appellants are convicted are compoundable and the composition can be entered into with the permission of the court. Looking to the chastened attitude of the accused and the commendable attitude of the injured complainant, in order to restore harmony in the society, we accept the composition. We grant permission to enter into the composition and accept the same. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on both the appellants. If they are on bail, their bail-bonds will be cancelled. If they are in jail, they will be released from the jail forthwith."
6. In 'SURESH NATHMAL RATHI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER' reported in 1992 CRL. L.J. 2106, the Bombay High Court has held in paragraphs 21 and 23 as under:
"21. After giving conscious consideration to the case and also the facts placed before me for seeking the permission 6 and to direct the Judicial Magistrate First Class to allow the parties to compound the offences, no doubt, such permission can be granted only under the peculiar and special circumstances and considering the facts and circumstances, it is a peculiar and special case. As it is submitted in the application exhs. 34 and 35 filed before the J.M.F.C., Shegaon and statement made by Shri Bhattad, the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is crystal clear that now there is no dispute between the parties and the complainant Smt.Shobha is leading happy married life. If the permission sought for to compound the offence punishable u/S.498-A of IPC, is not considered, there would be destruction of the married life and they would not prolong well in the eyes of the society. If the hanging sword is over the neck of the husbands as well as the old mother and brothers, the relations may again become strained and there would be a destruction of the happy life of Smt.Shobha and her husband. It may be that at one point of time, the husband and the relations had committed some undescribed act, but subsequently, the fact reveal, that they repent and ultimately, all are happy. Under these circumstances, it would not be desirable to reject the prayer made by the petitioner and to disturb their happy life. On the contrary, the husband and wife are enjoying the peaceful life. Under the circumstances and in the interest of the maintenance of the cordinative relationship 7 between husband and wife as well as other members of the family, the petitioners be allowed to compound the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
23. While granting permission to compound the offence, particularly under Section .498-A of the Indian Penal Code, peculiar and special circumstances are to be considered and if considering the special and peculiar circumstances, if the trial Court is satisfied, then only parties are to be allowed to compromise the matter keeping in view of the welfare of the parties in the matrimonial cases. Keeping in mind the interest of the couple and its impact on the society, I allow the petition to the extent only to the oral submissions made by Shri.Bhattad, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Looking to the chastened and the commendable attitude of the parties, in order to restore their house in order, I accept the composition. I grant permission to enter into the composition and accept the same. Accordingly, I allow the petition in the term of the issue raised and acquit them to liberty."
7. In 'MAHESH CHAND AND ANOTHER v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN' reported in AIR 1988 SC 2111, the head note reads as under:
8
" Criminal P.C.(1974), S.320 - Penal Code (1860), S.307 - Offence under S.307 -
Compounding of - Accused acquitted by trial Court but were convicted by High Court - Offence not compoundable under law but parties praying before Supreme Court to treat it as special case- One of accused a lawyer practicing in lower court - Counter case arising out of same transaction already compromised - Held, it would be proper that trial court should permit the parties to compound offence.(1987) 2 JT 361 (SC) Ref.(Constitution of India, Art.136). (Non-compoundable offence - Permission to compound - Granted by Supreme Court in facts of the case".
8. In 'STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. GOPAL LAL AND OTHERS' reported in AIR 1988 SC 2111, the head note reads as under:
" Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A
- Police filed challan against 4 accused persons - On complainant's application, trial court accepted compromise and acquitted accused of the charge - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - State applied for leave to appeal - Matter amicably settled between parties- State not to act in too technical manner- Not fit case to grant leave- Whether petition deserves to be allowed? (No)" (paras 2 to 4,7 & 8) 9
9. In this case, husband Ambareesh and wife Chandrakala are present before the Court. They have filed an application for composition. I have carefully examined the averments made in the composition application. Both the parties submit that they have compromised the matter and they are living together. The relationship between the Accused and the complainant is husband and wife. Basically, this is a matrimonial dispute. As stated earlier, wife has condoned the acts and omissions of the husband. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and also for the special reasons mentioned herein above and also to discourage the matrimonial dispute, in my view, application filed for compounding the offence is to be allowed.
10. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following:
ORDER [i] This Criminal Appeal is disposed of in terms of petition filed under Section 320[2] of Cr.PC.10
[ii] In view of the composition of the offence, exercising power under Section 320[8] of Cr.PC, the composition of offence under this Section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the Accused with whom offence has been compounded.
Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-