Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lakshmibai vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 August, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
CRL.P No. 7649 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7649 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMIBAI
W/O LATE ISHWAR NAIK,
NOW AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 225.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF
KUMSI POLICE STATION,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 225
Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: HIGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT.KAMALIBAI
W/O SURESH NAIK
NOW AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 225.
-2-
CRL.P No. 7649 of 2022
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI PARAMESH M.D., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO PERMIT THEM TO COMPOUND THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 36, 448 OF IPC AND QUASH THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 23.09.2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA IN
C.C.NO.1109/2010 AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED
SESSIONS JUDGE I FTC, SHIVAMOGGA DATED 21.06.2012 IN
CRL.A.NO.140/2011 AND MODIFIED BY THIS HONBLE COURT
IN CRL.RP.NO.753/2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.03.2022 FOR
AN OFFENCE P/U/S 326, 448 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
A complaint is registered by the 2nd respondent against
the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 504, 326
and 448 of the IPC in crime No.309/2009. This petition is
preferred by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated
23.09.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate, Shimoga in
C.C.No.1109/2010 by permitting the parties to compound the
offences so alleged against the petitioner.
2. The learned Magistrate, Shimoga in C.C.No.1109/2010
by his order dated 23.09.2011 convicted the petitioner for
CRL.P No. 7649 of 2022
offences punishable under Sections 326 and 448 of the IPC.
The said order of conviction was affirmed by the learned
Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.140/2011 by his order dated
21.06.2012 and this Court in Crl.R.P.No.753/2012 affirmed the
order of conviction while partly modifying the sentence imposed
on the petitioner.
3. During the pendency of these proceedings, it
transpires that the parties to the lis have entered into a
settlement and have filed an application seeking compounding
of the offences so made against the petitioner. The relevant
portion of the application reads as follows:
"10. The material on record clearly shows in
particular the Ex P-4, the evidence of Pw-1 and
Pw-5 Dr.H.S.Chandrappa clearly shows that
injured Pw-1 had sustained injury on her left
hand i.e., non-vital part of the body, no severe
injury was caused to attract the offence
punishable under section 326 IPC.
11. In view of the settlement so arrived, the
Respondent No.2 herein has no objection to
allow this petition to quash the judgment and
order dated 23/09/2011 passed by the Learned
II Addl., Civil Judge and JMFC., at Shimogga in
C.C.No.1109/2010 and confirmed by the
Learned I First Tract Court, Shivamogga dated
21/06/2012 in CRL.A.No.140/2011 for offence
punishable under sections 326 and 448 IPC and
acquit the petitioner in the above case by
CRL.P No. 7649 of 2022
permitting the parties to compound the
offences allowing this application.
12. The Respondent No 2 i.e., Pw-1/ Informant-
Victim Smt KamliBai herein entered to this
compromise on her own will and volition.
There is no threat or cohesion by anybody.
13. If this Hon'ble Court is not pleased to permit
the parties to compound the above case, they
will suffer irreparable loss and great hardship."
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:
"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
CRL.P No. 7649 of 2022
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
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)
CRL.P No. 7649 of 2022
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.
5. 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 quashed the proceedings
and also in view of the facts obtaining in the case at hand, I
deem it appropriate to accept the compromise so filed and set
aside the order of conviction passed against the petitioner.
CRL.P No. 7649 of 2022
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned order dated 23.09.2011 passed by the
learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shimoga
in C.C.No.1109/2010 stands quashed.
Consequently, I.A.No.1/2022 stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BKP
