Karnataka High Court
Sri Thimmaiah C U vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2023
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:21239
CRL.P No. 592 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 592 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. THIMMAIAH C.U.,
S/O UTTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.290, 2ND MAIN,
2ND BLOCK, AYYAPPANAGARA,
DEVASANDRA ROAD,
K R PURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 036.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI KUMAR M B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION,
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: HIGH BANGALORE.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE.
2. SMT.RANI CARIAPPA,
W/O CARIAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YRS,
R/AT 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
1ST BLOCK, AYYAPPA NAGAR,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:21239
CRL.P No. 592 of 2023
K.R.PURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 036.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODA, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2022 PASSED BY THE
LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.577/2021 AND ALLOW THE
APPLICATIONS U/S 320(2) AND 320(8) OF CR.P.C.,
CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER IN
C.C.NO.30016/2015, PASSED BY THE VIII ADDL.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU BY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
06.09.2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324, 354, 504, 506 AND
509 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 27.12.2022, passed in Criminal Appeal No.577/2021, by the 71st Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, by which the application filed under Sections 320(2) and 320(8) of the Cr.P.C., seeking to compound the offence after conviction in C.C.No.30016/2015, passed by the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, by -3- NC: 2023:KHC:21239 CRL.P No. 592 of 2023 judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.09.2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 354, 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC, is turned down on the ground that there is a bar in law to compound the offence under Section 354 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri M.B.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
3. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.09.2021, passed in C.C.No.30016/2015, reads as follows:
ORDER "Accused is hereby convicted of the offences punishable U/s 324, 354, 504, 506 and 509 of IPC by acting under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.
ORDER The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1year for the offence punishable U/s 324 of IPC and also liable to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 2 months.
The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1year for the offence punishable U/s 354 of IPC and also liable to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 2 months.
The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable U/s 504 of IPC and also -4- NC: 2023:KHC:21239 CRL.P No. 592 of 2023 liable to pay fine of Rs.1,000/. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 1 month.
The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable U/s 506 of IPC and also liable to pay fine of Rs.1,000/. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 1 month.
The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1year for the offence punishable U/s 509 of IPC and also liable to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 2 months.
Acting under Section 357 of Criminal Procedure Code out of the fine amount of Rs.3000/ (Rupees Three Thousand only) be paid to the PW1/Rani Karyappa and Rs.2,000/-
(Rupees Two Thousand only) be paid to the PW6/Ponnamma as compensation.
All sentences shall run concurrently. The bail bond of the accused shall stands cancelled. Office is to supply free copy of this Judgment to the accused."
4. The issue with regard to whether compromise can be arrived at between the parties post conviction and the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can entertain such compromise and close the proceedings despite conviction is answered by the Apex Court in the case of RAMGOPAL AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in 2021 SCC OnLine 834, wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:21239 CRL.P No. 592 of 2023 "13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extra-
ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).
... ... ...
19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra- ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal -6- NC: 2023:KHC:21239 CRL.P No. 592 of 2023 proceedings, bearing in mind : (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court, right from the year 2003 in the case of B.S.JOSHI V. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2003)4 SCC 675 which is subsequently followed by the Apex Court in the case of NIKHIL MERCHANT V. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION reported in (2008)9 SCC 677 and in the case of MANOJ SHARMA V. STATE AND OTHERS reported in (2008)16 SCC 1 has considered the fact that post conviction, a settlement can be accepted and proceedings can be obliterated by the Court, hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Following the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court, this Court in Crl.P.No.7649/2022 disposed on 16.08.2022, has obliterated the proceedings against the petitioner therein.
5. In the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order of -7- NC: 2023:KHC:21239 CRL.P No. 592 of 2023 conviction against the petitioner by recording the terms of settlement. The settlement reads as follows:
"JOINT AFFIDAVIT We, Smt.Rani Karyappa, (PW1), Smt. Ponnamma, (PW6) and the Petitioner herein all are resident of Bengaluru, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
1. We submit that I Smt.Rani Karyappa had lodged a complaint against the Petitioner in Crime No.125/2015 of High Ground Police Station and thereafter Charge Sheet was filed against the Petitioner for alleged offences punishable under section 324, 354, 504, 506 and 509 of IPC.
2. We submit that in the above case the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW11 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8(a), whereas Petitioner has got marked Ex.D1 and D2 and material object M.O.1 has been marked by the prosecution.
3. We submit that after the trial the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the offences punishable under section 324, 354, 504, 506, 509 of IPC by the Judgment dated:06/09/2021 by the Hon'ble VII A.C.M.M. Bangalore in C.C.No.30016/15.
4. We submit that PW1, PW6 and the Petitioner are belongs to Kodava Sangha of K.R.Puram, Bengaluru City and the said Sangha is also called Kaveri Sangha and it is one of the prestigious Sangha helping members of the Sangha in all respects and we are all belong to one community and belongs to Kodava Sanga of K.R.Puram, Bengaluru.
5. We submit that as we belong to particular Sangha and we have to meet each other on all occasions ie. For Marriage Functions, naming ceremony, Engagement Ceremony and if there is a death of the particular member we have to involve each other and we have to visit the member's family and we have to help each other on good or bad occasions.-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:21239 CRL.P No. 592 of 2023
6. We submit that in view of the aforesaid circumstances we the PW1, PW6 and the Petitioner are not in position to contest the matter in order to buy a peace in our Sangha activities and with the intervention of well-wishers, elders and friends. We have compromised in the aforesaid matter. Hence, we are praying this Hon'ble Court to close the aforesaid case by accepting this Joint Affidavit and the Appeal may be allowed thereby acquitting the Petitioner in the interest of justice.
7. If this Hon'ble Court is not pleased to accept the Joint Affidavit the PW1, PW6 and the Petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and great hardship. Whereas, no hardship will be caused to the prosecution if the joint affidavit is accepted.
We do hereby solemnly affirm and state that this name and signature and the contents stated above are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief."
In the light of the judgments so rendered by the Apex Court which all concern the issue whether the matter could be settled or compromised between the parties post conviction, wherein the Apex Court has permitted such compromise to be recorded post conviction by a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner as the offences alleged are not being heinous or against the State.
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC:21239 CRL.P No. 592 of 2023
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 27.12.2022 passed by the learned 71st Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in *Crl.A.No.577/2021 stands quashed.
(iii) The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 06.09.2021, passed in C.C.No.30016/2015, by the VIII ACMM, Bengaluru, is also quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 * Corrected vide Court order dated 25.07.2023.