State Of Karnataka vs Chandrashekar on 18 February, 2010

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Chandrashekar on 18 February, 2010

Bench: L.Narayana Swamy

IN THE HIGH cosaw or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18"'mAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010

BEFORE:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA swﬂnf"5j.f'

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1o57"g§«goQ7_hk

BETWEEN:

State of Karnataka, x_ _ ~.ﬁ ;
Rep. by Bangarpet Police. te,}p VAPPELLANT/S

{By Sri. A.V.Ramakrishna,sHﬁGP§} "xT..

AND:

1. Chandrashekaf,
28 years, _ "C;HV., ,V , _
S/o. late'Venkata:amaiah;
B.E.Student, ',',f.'r,"-'
R/0. Bengannr_vil1agé,1f
Bangarpet Talpk;_' '- V

;2."Srini9aSa """ 0

'. 38Years,_, .V
VS/e,"latetNa:ayanappa,
Conég;t¢r$_KsgTc.,

,, R/ot'Benqanﬁr village,

0_ Bangarpet.Taluk. ... RESPONEENT/S

h"e0[By Srif.S.N.Aswathanarayana, Adv. for R1 & R2.
7 Vsri. N.Devendra, Adv. for complainant ]

iriti'

This Crl. Appeal is filed u/Section 378(1) and

a0.0W(3) Cr.P.C. by the State P.P. for the State, praying

"to grant leave to file an appeal against the
Judgment dt. 10.4.2007 on the file of the Prl.
Sessions Judge, Kola: in Crl. Appeal No.29/2006-



acquitting the respondent/accused. for the offence
p/u/Ss. 323, 324 and 506 r/w. 34 IPC. *

This Crl. Appeal coming on for hearing on l}§L,q

this day the Court delivered the fo1lowing:_§

JUDGEMENT

The State has preferred Pithis.d_appeal:VA challenging the acquittal of the respondents for the charge under Sections 323, 324,J50§ r/wL_34 iPC in Crl.A. No.29/2006 by the'~.§ess_io%ns uJudcjei._at Kolar.

2. The case Qof ithediprosecutioni is that on 25.12.2004 in the merning an altercation had taken place between chandrashehar i,g_i acgused NO_1 and Subbamma ipeﬁ, the ﬁother of Srinivas [complainant} and Thimmaraju}_ i_At."ahout 8.30 a.m. while the complainant. andmﬂihimmaraju were narrating the incident _top.Sreenivas i e., accused No.2, accused No i," broudht dad scissors from his house and V assaulted on the complainant on his left side head .,ff§nd'BlSO on Thimmaraju on the back of his head and caused simple injuries. Accused No.1 also assaulted i"the_complainant with hands and kicked him and caused R'%simple injuries on his left and right forehand. Accused No.2 hit on the cheek of the complainant and caused. him hurt. The accused had also threatened K E K C.Ws.1 and 2 with dire consequences. In this regard a complaint came 'to be registered ix: .Crime No.229/2004 against the accused who _a£e£;»ﬁa§gfr respondents herein.

3. On behalf of the complainant piﬁ 2C:CﬁVt No.565/2005, Sri. N.Devendra}¢ files' vakalath».and prays permission to come on_ record. Accordingly, the complainant is permitted to come on record.

4. The learned cohnsel for the respondents and the complainant «aava_p£iiaa,_ﬁ;a¢._'cr1. No.66l/2010 praying permission to componnd the offences levelled against the ?ex€Fﬁ§entofaoC§§?d and to acquit them for the charges-' In support of the application they _have also filed a joint memo dated 08.02.2010. i__"5{da$ethc"the parties are present before the f'v,Court'_and pthey} are identified. by their respective '"=._.co1;nSels:

' :-

'gVc.a:I have heard the learned. counsel for the ﬁparties and perused the record.

7. In the application at para No.3 it is stated that at the intervention of the elders and conductor in the KSRTC and in case if he is convicted, it results in his dismissal fromf the service and would cause irreparable hardship "anq_u prays to allow the affidavit and the filed to that effect.

10. In view of the V.af_fida£r.tt'* memo filed on behalf of the parties stating that at the intervention of tﬁ§»eldeh§p_they have resolved the disputes in order to create Peeceful atmosPhere in the society and when such efforts are made by the locals that too elders} always it is encourageable and appreciablef aspect * _ Accordingly, this Court also feels to consider the affidavit and the joint memo for compouhding the offence. The submissions :.':'of».,th"e..€1ea.rn'eAd soverhfnent Pleader that the offence under Section 32% has been deleted from compoundable "=t_offencei couldﬁ be addressed by this Court by 5,_referring the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported '»:ind:2U08 Crl.L.J 2237, where in the similar '"»_circnmstances, the Apex Court has held that whenever "a dispute arises, which is purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transaction, that had been entered into between the parties and 4 in such circumstances, the appeal has to be allowed by exercising the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court.

11. Under Section 482 Cr.?.C. the H'ighvjgiCourt--_4'i has got power to exercise discretionary ,power * sparingly in the special facts and circunstances of ' each individual cases. In the light o§'the Sudgment cited supra and also under Section 432 crﬁPcCa: I am of the opinion thaﬁ' &Ew£% ﬁq$% and proper to grant the permission as sought for; Vgagaé, ﬁgs permission to compound the offences_is acccrdedf The Judgment and Order of Qtneﬁ trial_ Court convicting the respondentsfaccuseﬁ for the offence under Sections 323, 324-and 5O§Vrfw.d34$IPC is set aside and Misc.

;¢ﬁ;,NOjc6lf2D1D is allowed. The respondents/accused are_acguitted of the said charges. Accordingly, the 'i*,oappeai!is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court