Karnataka High Court
H R Venkatarama Reddy vs V Bise Gowda on 13 July, 2017
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.722 OF 2017
BETWEEN
H. R. VENKATARAMA REDDY
S/O RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT HOLUR VILLAGE & POST
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR-563 101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISHNUMURTHY ADVOCATE)
AND
V. BISE GOWDA
S/O VEERA BHADRE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT CHALDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR- 563 101. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. C.P. NAVEEN ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED
BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., SRINIVASAPURA
IN C.C.NO.284/2012 AND WHICH IS ALSO CONFIRMED
BY THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2017 PASSED BY THE I
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR IN CRL. A.NO.11/2014
AND TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON
FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
ORDER
Both the counsel and respondent are present. The respondent is duly identified by his counsel.
2. Sri. C.P.Praveen, Advocate for respondent files application under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act for compounding the offence.
3. It is submitted that the revision petitioner/accused is serving sentence in the Central Prison, Bengaluru in pursuance of the conviction warrant issued by the trial Court in the present case. Therefore, he seeks exemption for the presence of the revision petitioner/ accused to compound the offence.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) which was deposited before the trial Court in full settlement of his claim. He seeks permission to compound the offence.
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in TGN Kumar Vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 2011 SC 708 referring to its earlier judgment in Basavaraj R.Patil & Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (AIR -3- 2000 SC 3214) has held that the trial Court, can exercise discretion to dispense with the personal appearance of the accused for his examination in terms of Section 313 of Cr.P.C, keeping in view the following parameters:
(i) Where his narration of facts satisfy the Court of his real difficulties to be physically present in Court for giving such answer;
(ii) Where there is an assurance that no prejudice would be caused to him, in any manner, by dispensing with his personal presence during such questioning;
(iii) Where he undertakes that he would not raise any grievance on that score at any stage of the case.
6. The High Court of Kerala in Y.P.Baiju Vs. State of Kerala and Others (2008 CRI.L.J.928) has held in para No.21 is as follows:
21. I shall now attempt to narrate my conclusions. They are:
(1) Composition under Section 320, Cr.P.C is a unilateral act.
(2) The victim (person shown in column of 3 of S.320(1) and 320(2)) can himself make an application for composition.-4-
(3) It is not necessary for the Court to insist on a joint application for composition.
The victim can of course make a joint application along with the accused. (4) It is not necessary for the Court to insist on the personal appearance of the accused before the Court to consider an application for composition under Section 320, Cr.P.C.
(5) The mere fact that the Court has already issued a non-bailable warrant against the accused and that is pending is no reason for the Court not to proceed further with the case. All steps for which personal presence of the accused is not necessary can be continued even if the non-bailable warrant remains unexecuted and the accused has not personally appeared.
7. In view of the submissions above, this Court is satisfied that the revision petitioner/accused is not able to appear before the Court due to his imprisonment in this case itself. Having regard to that and the aforesaid judgments, the respondent is permitted to compound the offence.
8. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside. Fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten -5- thousand only) shall be refunded to the accused/petitioner. The revision petitioner/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.
9. In view of the above, I.A.Nos.1/2017, 2/2017 and 3/2017 are allowed, accordingly.
10. Office to communicate the order to the jail authorities, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL