Karnataka High Court
Shivappa Gadigeppa Hattiyavar vs State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9948
CRL.P No. 102162 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102162 OF 2024 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAPPA GADIGEPPA HATTIYAVAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. NEAR ROSHANI CHARCH,
PALA ROAD, HANGAL,
TQ. HANGAL, HAVERI-581101.
2. SRINIVAS RAO
S/O. ACHAHUTA RAMA RAO SUNKANAVALLI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O. 4TH WARD GANGANAGAR,
HANGAL, TQ. HANGAL,
HAVERI-580001,
PRESENT ADDRESS
Digitally signed
SHRIRAMA NAGAR,
by MANJANNA CAMP, ROUDKUNDA,
E
Location: HIGH
TQ. SINDHANUR-584128.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. PRAKASH GADIGEPPA HATTIYAVAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O. NEAR ROSHANI CHARCH,
PALA ROAD, HANGAL,
TQ. HANAGAL,
DIST. HAVERI.
AT PRESENT GUNDENAHALLI,
TQ. HANGAL, HAVERI.
4. RAMAPPA HANUMANTAPPA YALLUR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O. 1ST CROSS, ISHWARNAGAR,
HANGAL, TQ. HANGAL,
HAVERI.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9948
CRL.P No. 102162 of 2024
AT PRESENT 1ST CROSS,
ISHWARNAGAR, HANGAL,
DIST HAVERI- 581110.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
PSI HANGAL PS,
BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD 580001.
2. NETRAVATI
W/O. LOKESH SUNGAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK/FARMER,
R/O. HANGAL, KALLAHAKKAI,
TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI 581110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
M. V. VANTI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4, IN SPECIAL SC/ST CASE NO.
32/2024 (CRIME NO. 81/2024 HANAGAL P.S.) PENDING ON THE FILE
OF I-ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
HAVERI FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SC. 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC
AND SEC. 3(1), (R), 3(2), (VA) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2015.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9948
CRL.P No. 102162 of 2024
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State.
2. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings in Spl. SC.St No.32/2024 pending on the file of learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Haveri for for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1), 3(r), 3(2)(Va) of Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
3. Now the de-facto complainant - respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit stating that she has no objection to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. The contents of the affidavit are as follows:
-4-NC: 2024:KHC-D:9948 CRL.P No. 102162 of 2024 "I, Netravatl W/o. Lokesh Sungar, Aged:29 Years, Occ:
Farmer, R/o:Hangal, Kallahakkai, Tα: Hangal, Dist: Haveri, today at Dharwad do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under:
1. I am the 2nd respondent/complainant in the above case. I am fully conversant with the facts of the case. Hence, I am swearing to this affidavit.
2. I submit that with the intervention of the elders of village, Well-wishers the dispute is amicably settled.
Therefore, I am not pressing my complaint. Hence, I have no objection to allow the above petition and quash the proceedings in Specl. SC/ST.Case No.32/2024 pending on the file of I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Haveri, for the offences punishable under section. 323, 504, 506 R/W. 34 of IPC and Sec. 3(1), (r), 3(2), (Va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015.
3. The above stated contents are correct."
4. The allegations made in the complaint shows that there was a dispute between the complainant and the accused and same is settled as per the advice of the elders without any compulsion or coercion. Therefore, continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners is not at all necessary and that would be nothing but abuse of process of law. Since the alleged offences are non-compoundable in nature, the accused prayed to quash the proceedings and permit to compound the offences. As the matter is settled between the parties, it is just -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9948 CRL.P No. 102162 of 2024 and necessary to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 at Para Nos.31 to 35 has held as under:
"31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High 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:
(I) 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 NC: 2023:KHC-
K:6872 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.
(II) 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 -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9948 CRL.P No. 102162 of 2024
(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.
(III) 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 Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on NC: 2023:KHC-K:6872 the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
(IV) 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.
(V) 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.
(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9948 CRL.P No. 102162 of 2024 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. 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.
(VII) 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 -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9948 CRL.P No. 102162 of 2024 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 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.
32. After having clarified the legal position in the manner aforesaid, we proceed to discuss the case at hand.
33. In the present case, FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 was registered under Sections 307, 324, 323, 34 IPC.
-9-NC: 2024:KHC-D:9948 CRL.P No. 102162 of 2024 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 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.
34. 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.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9948 CRL.P No. 102162 of 2024
35. 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, 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."
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9948 CRL.P No. 102162 of 2024
6. From the perusal of the aforesaid decision and the facts and circumstances and the material available on record, it appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported assault made by the accused on the complainant. In this context, the Court finds that, the elders of the village intervened in the matter and parties have settled their disputes and have decided to live peacefully in future. This becomes an important consideration. In view of the compromise between the 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. When the Court take all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the Court is of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused persons is liable to be quashed.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9948 CRL.P No. 102162 of 2024
7. Hence, the affidavit filed by the defacto complainant is accepted. In view of the settlement arrived between the parties and in view of the ratio laid down in the above cited supra, it is necessary to permit the parties to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. Hence, the Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in Spl. SC/ST No.32/2024 pending on the file of the learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Haveri, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, are hereby quashed, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
The Trial Court is directed to pay the amount, if any, deposited by the petitioners - accused to the respondent No.2
- defacto complainant on proper identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE RSH/ct-an LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 5