Karnataka High Court
Karabasayya S/O Sangayya ... vs State Of Karnataka, on 27 September, 2021
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRL.R.P.NO.2044 OF 2013
BETWEEN
KARABASAYYA
S/O SANGAYYA BASRIHALLIMATH,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PHOTOGRAPHER,
R/O: CHIKKERUR, TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI, ADV.,
FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR CHAKALABBI, ADV.,)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH B CHIGARI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT-STATE,
SRI. N. D. GUNDE, ADV., FOR COMPLAINANT)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397
R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT, RANEBENNUR IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.41/2010 DATED 13.12.2012 AND THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.142/2007
DATED 02.07.2010 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND I JMFC,
HIREKERUR AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND ACQUIT
THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED.
-2-
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision is filed against the judgment of conviction passed by both the Courts below for the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC, whereby the Trial Court has imposed the sentence of imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default clause of S.I. for a period of one month.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 18.02.2007 night at 8.00 p.m., in front of bus stand in Chikkerur village, when the complainant demanded the amount due to him from the accused, the accused-revision petitioner abused him in filthy language and picked a club lying nearby and assaulted on his right forehand causing grievous injury to him and he also threatened him. In this regard, he was charge sheeted and on the basis of the evidence, he was convicted for the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC but was acquitted for the offences -3- punishable under sections 504 and 506 of IPC by the Trial Court.
3. This judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur came to be challenged in Criminal Appeal No.41/2010 before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 13.12.2012 dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court.
4. These concurrent findings of conviction are challenged in this revision.
5. Subsequently, both the parties have submitted a compromise petition under section 320 r/w section 482 of Cr.P.C. reporting settlement and the learned counsel Sri. Neelendra D Gunde filed power for the complainant/respondent No.2. Both complainant and the accused were present before the Court on 24.09.2021 and when Court enquired them, they submit that they have got settled the dispute amicably. They have also filed affidavits in support of compromise petition. It is submitted that -4- since both are of the same village, in order to maintain cordial relationship, they got the matter settled.
6. Admittedly, the offence under Section 326 of IPC is not compoundable offence. Further, the revision petitioner-accused has already suffered conviction before both the Courts below. As such, a doubt arises regarding jurisdiction of this Court to entertain such a petition in criminal revision. In this context, learned counsel for revision petitioner-accused has placed reliance on unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.3696/2010 dated 18.04.2016, wherein in similar circumstances, considering the relationship, this Court has allowed such a petition by accepting the joint memo and acquitted the revision petitioner-accused by setting aside the impugned orders of conviction.
7. The learned counsel for revision petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hob'ble Apex Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav and others v. State of Jharkhand and another reported in (2014) 9 -5- SCC 653, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 482 and 302 - Quashing of non-compoundable offences in view of compromise between parties - Categories of cases in which such power can be exercised, restated - Held, High Court can quash criminal proceedings under S.482 even though offence alleged is non- compoundable if parties have amicably settled their disputes and victim has no objection - Further, this would depend on facts of each case - Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder cannot be effaced by quashing proceedings because they have harmful effect on society and are not restricted to two individuals or groups - Quashing of such offences may send a wrong signal to society - However, where High Court is convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature not affecting public peace or tranquility and quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would secure ends of justice, it may quash the same - In such cases, prosecution becomes lame and pursuing such lame prosecution becomes waster of time and energy and also likely to unsettle compromise and obstruct restoration of peace - On facts held, though offences under Ss. 326 and 307 IPC are uncompoundable, but considering compromise -6- petition filed by parties, and fact that they were neighbours and living peacefully, pending proceedings directed to be quashed - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 326 and 307 r/w S.34 - Compromise - Quashing of proceedings under
8. In the said case, the offences were under section 326 and 307 of IPC. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court has exercised the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and acquitted the accused and quashed the initiation of the proceedings itself. However, it makes out clear that in the given circumstances, the Court can exercise such powers to compromise in non-compoundable offences. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Shanker and others v. State of Uttar Pradhesh reported in (1982) 3 SCC 388(1).
9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has further placed reliance on the decision of this court in Crl.A.No.3696/2010 between Mallappa S/o Siddappa Pujari vs State of Karnataka dated 19.04.2016 wherein, -7- in similar circumstances, this court by placing reliance on the decision passed in Yogendra Yadav (supra) has allowed the compromise on the ground that, when the parties have compromised the matter, there is no purpose in driving the parties to file another petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. A similar view is taken by this court in Crl.R.P.No.485/2012 c/w Crl.RP.No.467/2012 dated 25.02.2015. Again in the said decision, this court relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, has allowed the compromise petition in respect of non-compoundable offence under Section 326 of IPC itself. A similar view is taken by this court in Crl.RP.No.515/2013 in the case Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka dated 24.11.2017 basing on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narender Singh Vs State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the offence under Section 307 of IPC was allowed to be compounded. In in the instant case, the offence is under Section 326 of IPC. In -8- Crl.R.P.No.515/2013 (supra) in para 6 this court observed as under:
"6. On a perusal of the above said judgment, it is clear that when the parties have reached settlement in respect of the offences which are non-compoundable in nature, the question of permitting them to compound the offense does not arise at all. However, when the parties have reached such settlement in respect of the offences which are non-compoundable in nature also, the quashment is permissible and the same is within the discretionary power of the High Court depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Apex Court has permitted the parties to compound the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and quashed the proceedings."
10. Again, a similar view is taken by this court in Crl.RP.No.988/2011 in the case of J.Madhu Varma Vs. State of Karnataka disposed off on 14.08.2019. It is also based on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh(supra). This court allowed the compromise petition on the ground that parties have settled the dispute and decided to lead a cordial life and the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the offences are not against the society and are not heinous in -9- nature. The Apex Court in Gian Singh(supra) as well as in Yogendra Yadav (supra) has clearly held that allowing such compromise is within the discretion of the High Court if the offences alleged does not involve moral turpitude or are not grave offences like rape, murder, the same could be quashed by invoking the inherent powers vested in the court for the purpose of maintaining the social harmony, public peace and tranquility.
11. This court regularly in the above referred matters has allowed the compromise petition. In the instant case, injuries found on the complainant is not on any vital part of the body. Under these circumstances, considering the above referred decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the endorsement made by the complainant by filing an affidavit regarding compromise, in my considered opinion, there is no harm in allowing the compromise, as it will avoid further round of litigation otherwise they would be driven to approach the court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., -10- which is an another round of litigation and it again burdens the court. Hence, in my considered opinion, compromise petition filed under Section 482 r/w Section 320 of Cr.P.C needs to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The compromise petition filed under Section 320 r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
In view of compounding of the offence, the impugned order passed by the Fast Track Court, Ranebennur in Crl.A.No.41/2010 dated 13.12.2012 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.142/2007 dated 02.07.2010 by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Hirekerur are set aside and accused/revision petitioner stands acquitted.
Sd/-
JUDGE Yan/MBS/-