Karnataka High Court
Smt Lalithamma vs State Of Karnataka on 19 March, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO.5295/2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LALITHAMMA,
W/O GOVARDHANA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
2. KUMAR BHARATH,
S/O SMT. LALITHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS.
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED
BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
AND PETITIONER NO.1 SMT. LALITHAMMA.
PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
R/O MELURU VILLAGE,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT- 562 105.
... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI SUBRAHMANYA P.D., ADVOCATE (THROUGH V.C.)]
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MANHENAHALLI POLICE STATION,
GOWRIBIDANUR CIRCLE,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 210.
NOW REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2
2. SANTHOSH,
S/O KONDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O CHEELANAHALLI VILLAGE,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 210.
3. NIKHIL,
S/O NAGARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/O CHEELENAHALLI VILLAGE,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT- 561 210.
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. B.G. NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R-1;
R-2 AND R-3 - SERVED]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER/AWARD DATED 14.09.2019 MADE IN C.C.NO.158/2018
ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE LOK ADALATH, SITTING AT SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, GOWRIBIDANUR, RECORDING
COMPROMISE AND ALLOWING COMPOUNDING OF THE OFFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 506 AND 323 R/W SECTION
34 OF IPC BETWEEN THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND THE R-2 AND R-3
BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to issue writ of certiorari or order or direction in like nature setting aside the order/award dated 14.09.2019 made in C.C.No.158/2018 passed by the Lok Adalath sitting at Senior 3 Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Gowribidanur, recording compromise and allowing compounding of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC between petitioner No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 being arbitrary, erroneous and not sustainable in law and to restore the proceedings in C.C.No.158/2018.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that based on the complaint of petitioner No.1 herein, the police have registered the case against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the above offences. The records reveals that an application was filed before the learned Magistrate invoking Section 320(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. praying the Court to permit them for compromising the above matter. On perusal of the application, petitioner No.1 has signed the said application and so also respondent Nos.2 and 3. The order which is produced before this Court available at page No.55 discloses that the case was called before the Lok Adalath. The complainant and the accused persons were also present before the Court. It is mentioned that on persuasion of conciliators, the parties have settled the dispute between them and hence the application is filed. The order also discloses that the complainant and the accused persons wants to end their 4 dispute and put an end to the enmity. Hence, the complainant and the accused wants to end their dispute to avoid future complications. In view of the contents of the petition and in the interest of both the parties and so also public at large, the parties are permitted to compromise the case. It is also mentioned that the offences which have been invoked against respondent Nos.2 and 3 are compoundable and hence the application was allowed and permitted to compound the offences.
3. Now the learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that petitioner No.1 was deceived by making the promise that mangalyasutra would be handed over. The grounds urged in the petition is that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is arbitrary, erroneous and not sustainable. That the Lok Adalath sitting at Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Gowribidanur has misinterpreted Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and has failed to appreciate the allegations made in the original complaint and FIR and the offences are not compoundable and has not properly exercised the jurisdiction. The powers exercised under Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 has exceeded the jurisdiction and the 5 learned Magistrate has not conducted proper enquiry and also followed the procedure contemplated under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and hence it requires interference of this Court.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 - State would vehemently contend that an application was filed before the Trial Court invoking Section 320(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. The offences are compoundable in nature. The matter was taken up before the learned Magistrate in the presence of the conciliators. The petitioner No.1 also appeared before the Court. The learned counsel would also submit that C.W.2 is the son of petitioner No.1 and he is a minor. In the Lok Adalath, the conciliator and the learned Magistrate have applied their mind and passed the detailed order noting the very presence of the complainant i.e., petitioner No.1 herein. It also discloses that on pursuance of conciliators, the parties have settled the dispute between them. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 was mislead cannot be accepted. Only on the request of the complainant as well as respondent 6 Nos.2 and 3, the matter was taken up before the Lok Adalath and the matter was settled and the learned Magistrate also exercised the powers under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., since the offences invoked against respondent Nos.2 and 3 are compoundable offences.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and also on perusal of the records, the offences invoked against respondent Nos.2 and 3 are compoundable offences. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the offences are not compoundable cannot be accepted.
6. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Magistrate has misinterpreted Section 320 of Cr.P.C. also cannot be accepted. On perusal of Section 320(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C., it is clear that the parties can seek permission of the Court to compound the offences within the provisions of Section 320(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and the powers are exercised by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Gowribidanur, that too in the Lok Adalath. The Legal Services 7 Authorities Act also permits compounding of the offences which are compoundable in nature. Hence, the very contention of the petitioners that Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act has been exceeded cannot be accepted.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had promised to deliver the magalyasutra and the same has not been delivered. When the complainant was present before the Lok Adalath and the matter was taken up in the presence of the conciliators and reported the compromise that they have entered into compromise and amicably settled the issue between the parties, now the petitioners cannot contend that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have turned hostile to the terms which they had agreed. On perusal of the application also there is no such terms which is agreed. In the order also, there are no such averments with regard to agreeing to deliver the mangalyasutra. When such being the case, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
8
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD