Karnataka High Court
Vishwanatha vs State By Kadur Police on 3 August, 2023
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:27335
CRL.RP No. 233 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 233 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. VISHWANATHA
S/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O MANGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101.
2. RAMESH
S/O GANGADHARA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O KABBALLI,
NAGARALU POST, KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTICT-577 101.
3. SMT. SULOCHANA
W/O LATE. BASAVARAJAPPA,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
by RENUKAMBA R/O MANGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KG KADUR TALUK,
Location: High CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101.
Court of
Karnataka 4. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O GANGADHARA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/O KABBALLI, NAGARALU POST,
KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTICT-577 101.
5. SMT. LALITHAMMA
W/O LATE RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/O GUNDASAGARA,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:27335
CRL.RP No. 233 of 2016
NAGALUR POST, KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MADHU .M.T, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GIRISH .B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY KADUR POLICE,
KADUR,
REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. VIJAY KUMAR .T, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 )
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.03.2014
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
KADUR IN CRL.C.NO.956/2010 BY CONVICTING THE PETR.
AND THE SAID ORDER WAS CONFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE
COURT BY DISMISSING THE APPEL FILED BY THE
PETITIONER, THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.01.2016 PASSED BY
THE II ADDL.S.J., AT CHIKKAMAGALUR IN CRL.A.NO. 52/2014
AND THE PETITIONER TO BE ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE
ALLEGED AGAINST THEM.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The accused/petitioner - Nos.1 to 5 are present.The complainant-CW.1:Sri.Ravi Kumar and injured- CW.2:Smt. Sharadamma are also present before the Court.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:27335 CRL.RP No. 233 of 2016
2. Sri. T. Vijaya Kumar, learned Advocate has also filed power for CW.1-Complainant: Sri. Ravi Kumar and the injured CW.2-Sharadamma. He has also filed an application under Section 304 of Cr.P.C seeking leave of the Court. In view of the settlement of the dispute between the parties, leave is granted. The power is accepted.
3. The parties have submitted a compromise petition under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. read with 482 of Cr.P.C. reporting settlement. The petitioners have also filed their respective affidavits along with the affidavit of the complainant and Injured:Smt. Sharadamma. They submit that, they are the neighbours and dispute is with regard to removal of fencing and the incident has taken in heat of moment. Further, it is submitted that the matter is now settled by the intervention of the elders of the village and they intend to lead cordial life in village by maintaining harmony.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:27335 CRL.RP No. 233 of 2016
4. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 326 of IPC. Both the Courts below have convicted the revision petitioners/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 504, 323, 326 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC by imposing sentence of Imprisonment as well as fine. The offence under Section 326 of Cr.P.C is non-compoundable.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners/accused has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.2044/2013 [Karabasayya Vs. State of Karnataka] pertaining to Dharwad Bench rendered on 27.09.2021. This Court by relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 [Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkand] and other citations, has allowed the said revision petition by accepting the compromise in respect of offence under section 326 Cr.P.C., and permitted for compromise, though the offence was non-compoundable, in view of the fact that the injury was not on vital part of the body, -5- NC: 2023:KHC:27335 CRL.RP No. 233 of 2016 no deadly weapon was used for commission of the offence and parties are of neighbouring village.
6. In the instant case also, the parties are neighbours and the offence is said to have taken place pertaining to the removal of fencing. Further, the injuries also not on the vital part of the body, as the victim Smt. Sharadamma has sustained injury to her wrist ie., fracture of the bone of wrist. Now they are said to have settled the dispute at the intervention of the elders of the village.
7. The learned HCGP is heard on this point and he submits that, in view of the above said decision of this Court in Crl. R.P. No.2044/2013, necessary orders may be passed.
8. Considering the above facts and circumstances and the citations relied, the application needs to be allowed, as the parties have settled the dispute amicably without any threat or coercion. They admit the contents of the compromise petition when they are explained to -6- NC: 2023:KHC:27335 CRL.RP No. 233 of 2016 them in presence of their respective counsels in Kannada language known to them. Considering these aspects, the compromise petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
i) The Compromise Petition is allowed.
ii) In view of compounding of the offences, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.03.2014 passed by the trial Court viz. Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Kadur in Criminal Case No.956/2010 by convicting the petitioners, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court viz., II Additional Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru, in 52/2014 vide judgment dated 01.01.2014 are set aside. The accused/revision petitioners stand acquitted.
iii) The bail bonds executed by the accused/revision petitioners stand cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23