Karnataka High Court
Ramappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1630
CRL.A No. 200058 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200058 OF 2025
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMAPPA
S/O KARIYAPPA MANVI,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. SHIVARAJ @ ASHOK
S/O KARIYAPPA MANVI,
AGE: 20 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. KARIYAMMA
W/O KARIYAPPA MANVI,
Digitally signed by AGE: 45 YEARS,
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA OCC: AGRICULTURE,
UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. KARIYAPPA
KARNATAKA
S/O DURAGAMMA MANVI,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
5. LACHAMAPPA
S/O DURUGAMMA MANVI,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
6. DURUGAMMA
W/O LACHAMAPPA MANVI,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1630
CRL.A No. 200058 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
7. SANGEETHA
W/O RAMAPPA MANVI,
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O: NAGARABENCHI VILLAGE,
TALUK : MASKI,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 132.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH - 585 107.
(THROUGH MASKI PS TALUK MASKI,
DIST.RAICHUR - 584 132.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SANTOSH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374
(2) OF CR.P.C (OLD), U/SEC. 415(2) OF BNSS, 2023 (NEW),
PRAYING TO ADMIT THIS APPEAL, CALL FOR THE RECORDS
FROM THE COURT BELOW AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 03.02.2024
PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAICHUR, SITTING AT SINDHANUR IN SESSIONS CASE NO.
90/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC.143, 147, 148,
323, 354, 326 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE
APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED NO.1 TO 7 IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1630
CRL.A No. 200058 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2024 passed in Sessions Case No.90/2022 by III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, sitting at Sindhanur (for short 'the learned Sessions Judge'), wherein the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 354 and 326 r/w Section 149 of IPC, 1860, as under:
"Accused No.1 to 7 are hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 143 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 7 are hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 147 of IPC.-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1630 CRL.A No. 200058 of 2025 HC-KAR Accused No.1 to 7 are hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 148 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 7 are hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 R/w Sec.149 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 7 are hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 354 R/w Sec.149 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 7 are hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 326 R/w Sec.149 of IPC.
(Each accused shall deposit fine of Rs.6,500/-) The substantive sentence of imprisonment referred above shall run concurrently."
2. Learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the defacto complainant have jointly filed an application under Section 359 r/w Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to permit them to compound the offences and -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1630 CRL.A No. 200058 of 2025 HC-KAR thereby set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentenced passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
3. The application is accompanied with the affidavit of appellant No.1-Ramappa on behalf of other appellants and affidavit of defacto complainant-Mariyappa. It is stated in the affidavits that, after the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, with the intervention of the elder persons and well wishers in the family, they have settled their dispute amicably, since they are neighbours and belongs to the same village. As such, it is stated by the defacto complainant and the other injured persons that the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge may be set aside by allowing the application.
4. No doubt the offence involved in this case under Section 326 of IPC is non-compoundable in nature, since the parties are neighbours, who belongs to the same village and the alleged incident is purely private in nature, the same do not have any serious impact on the society. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1630 CRL.A No. 200058 of 2025 HC-KAR of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, at paragraph No.15 as follows:
"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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;
15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes 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 the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;
15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1630 CRL.A No. 200058 of 2025 HC-KAR be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves.
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 framing 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/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1630 CRL.A No. 200058 of 2025 HC-KAR accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc."
5. Collocating the above principles of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute and living peacefully, they are permitted to compound the offences. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(a) The appeal is allowed.
(b) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2024 passed in Sessions Case No.90/2022 by III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, sitting at Sindhanur, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 354 and 326 r/w Section 149 of IPC, 1860, is hereby set-aside.
(c) The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 7 are acquitted for the charges levelled against them.
(d) Bail bond of the accused and that of their sureties shall stand cancelled.-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1630 CRL.A No. 200058 of 2025 HC-KAR
(e) Fine amount, if any, deposited by accused is ordered to be refunded to them on due identification.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32