Karnataka High Court
Raghavendra S/O Hanumappa B Avula vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7283
CRL.P No. 101400 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101400 OF 2024 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. HANUMAPPA B. AVULA,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
R/O.H.NO.269, MURARJI NAGAR, ARJUN VIHAR,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030.
2. HANUMAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA AVULA @ BEGARI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED,
R/O.H.NO.269, MURARJI NAGAR,
ARJUN VIHAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030.
3. SMT. RANGAMMA W/O. HANUMAPPA AVULA
@ BEGARI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O.H.NO.269, MURARJI NAGAR, ARJUN VIHAR,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SADASHIV S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH OLD HUBLI
Digitally signed
by MANJANNA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP. DHARWAD.
E
Location: HIGH 2. SMT. VIJAYASHREE W/O. RAGHAVENDRA AVULA,
COURT OF AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
KARNATAKA R/O. C/O. RAMAKRSHNA, H.NO.13-2-13,
RKH COLONY, YERAMARUS CAMP, RAICHUR 584135.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S. 482 R/W. SECTION 320 OF CR.P.C,
SEEKING TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN SC NO.4/2020, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE I ST ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIOINS JUDGE,
DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
U/S. 323, 341, 307, 504, 498A, R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7283
CRL.P No. 101400 of 2024
ORDER
1. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - de facto complainant are present.
2. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.2 - de facto complainant are present. They have filed compromise petition under Section 482 read with Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C.
The contents of the compromise petition is as under:
"1) Petitioner No. 1 is Husband of Respondent No. 2 both have entered settlement before the Hon'ble family court at Raichur in Crl Misc. No.216/2019 and also before the mediation Center of this Hon'ble court as Per the order Passed in MFA NO. 105114/2023. Petitioner No. 1 has agreed to withdraw the divorce case and Respondent No. 2 has agreed to live together.
2) Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 both have withdrawn their respective cases filed against each other. This case is also compounded as per the advice of elders and family members.
3) Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 be permitted to compound the offences in Sessions Case No. 4/2020 Pending on the file of the Hon'ble Ist -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7283 CRL.P No. 101400 of 2024 Additional District & Sessions Judge Dharwad Sitting at Hubballi. for the offence punishable under section 307, 323, 341, 498A, 504, R/W Section 34 of Indian Penal code.
4) In view of Settlement Petitioner No.1 has agreed before the Mediation Center of this Hon'ble court that, he will withdraw the divorce case and Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw the MFA NO. 105114/2023 and both will lead happy married life.
5) Petitioner No. 1 is going to take care of his wife and children's and he has made arrangement of making separate house in Hubli and already husband has made admission to the school for his children's education at Hubli.Hence, petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2
pray to permit them to compound the above mentioned offences In the ends of Justice."
3. Perused the compromise petition and the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., wherein the petitioners prayed to quash the proceedings in S.C. No.4/2020 pending on the file of learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 307, 504, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC.
-4-NC: 2024:KHC-D:7283 CRL.P No. 101400 of 2024
4. From the perusal of compromise petition, it appears that petitioner No.1 is the husband of de facto complainant and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are her in-laws. They submit that they have been maintaining cordial relationship between their family.
5. The de facto complainant and accused persons -
petitioners have compromised the dispute without any compulsion or coercion on the advice of the well wishers and relatives of the accused persons and the complainant.
Therefore, continuation of prosecution against the petitioners is not at all necessary and it would be nothing, but abuse of process of law. Since the alleged offences are non-
compoundable in nature accused persons have prayed to quash the proceedings and permit the parties to compromise the matter.
6. Today the accused - petitioners and the complainant are present before the Court and the complainant submitted that the accused persons are in cordial terms with her and the dispute has been compromised between them.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that in view of compromise arrived between the parties, the -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7283 CRL.P No. 101400 of 2024 Court may allow the compromise and quash the proceedings.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 -
complainant submits that since the matter is amicably settled between the parties, invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the proceedings in S.C. No.4/2020 may be quashed.
9. Perused the material available on record. The de facto complainant having agreed to withdraw the complaint registered against the petitioners - accused herein, since, she has compromised the dispute with the accused persons, it will be a futile exercise, if the petitioners-accused are subjected to trial, since the probability of their conviction is remote and bleak in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another1, at para Nos.29 to 33 has held as under:
"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High 1 (2014) 6 SCC 466 -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7283 CRL.P No. 101400 of 2024 Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
i. ends of justice, or ii. to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7283 CRL.P No. 101400 of 2024 Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor.
-8-NC: 2024:KHC-D:7283 CRL.P No. 101400 of 2024 On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7283 CRL.P No. 101400 of 2024 decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.
30. After having clarified the legal position in the manner aforesaid, we proceed to discuss the case at hand.
31. In the present case, FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 was registered under Section 307/324/323/34 IPC. Investigation was completed, whereafter challan was presented in the court against the petitioner herein. Charges have also been framed; the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. At this juncture, parties entered into compromise on the basis of which petition under Section 482 of the Code was filed by the petitioners namely the accused persons for quashing of the criminal proceedings under the said FIR. As per the copy of the settlement which was annexed along with the petition, the compromise took place between the parties on 12.7.2013 when respectable members of the Gram Panchayat held a meeting under the Chairmanship of Sarpanch. It is stated
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7283 CRL.P No. 101400 of 2024 that on the intervention of the said persons/Panchayat, both the parties were agreed for compromise and have also decided to live with peace in future with each other. It was argued that since the parties have decided to keep harmony between the parties so that in future they are able to live with peace and love and they are the residents of the same village, the High Court should have accepted the said compromise and quash the proceedings.
32. We find from the impugned order that the sole reason which weighed with the High Court in refusing to accept the settlement between the parties was the nature of injuries. If we go by that factor alone, normally we would tend to agree with the High Court's approach. However, as pointed out hereinafter, some other attendant and inseparable circumstances also need to be kept in mind which compel us to take a different view.
33. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., "respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized". This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village,
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7283 CRL.P No. 101400 of 2024 including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly."
(emphasis supplied).
30. In the present case F.I.R. No.129/2018 is registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The investigation is completed, whereafter challan was presented in the Court against the petitioners herein, charges have not been framed. At this juncture, parties have entered into compromise, on the basis of which petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7283 CRL.P No. 101400 of 2024 petitioners, namely, the accused persons, for quashing of the proceedings in S.C. No.4/2020. In the instant case, charges to be framed and evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case.
31. In view of settlement arrived between the parties and in view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions cited supra, the chances of conviction appear to be remote. It would therefore be unnecessary to drag the proceedings. Hence, taking all these factors into consideration, I am of the opinion that the compromise arrived between the parties be accepted and the proceedings in S.C. No.4/2020 is required to be quashed. Hence, the Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed.
ii. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in S .C. No.4/2020 on the file of the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7283 CRL.P No. 101400 of 2024 learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 307, 504, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC is hereby quashed.
iii. In view of disposal of petition, pending I.As., if any, also shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE RSH/ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18