Ramesh S/O Kashinath @ Laxmina Rao ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2336 Kant

                          1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

        CRIMINAL PETITION No.200156/2022


BETWEEN

RAMESH S/O KASHINATH
@ LAXMINA RAO HALBURGE
AGE 36 YEARS, OCCU. DRIVER,
R/O KHAJI COLONY, BIDAR,
BIDAR, TQ AND DIST: BIDAR 585401
                                       ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI JAIRAJ K. BUKKA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY ITS DHANURA PS
      REP BY ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
      BENCH KALABURAGI

2.    DEEPAK S/O DANAJI RAO MANKERI
      AGE 31 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
      R/O KOTGYAL VADI, TQ: BHALKI,
      DIST BIDAR 585413
                                      ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1)
                                 2




     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
QUASH AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS
COURT IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.3082/2013
DAATED 22.03.2021 AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE C.C.NO.276
OF 2010 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
BHALKI CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE
ADDL. DISTRRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BIDAR IN
CRL.APPEAL NO.6/2013 DATED 17.12.2012 AND THEREBY
ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 337, 338, 304-A OF IPC READ WITH
SECTION 187 OF IMV ACT. THE PETITIONER AND 2 ND
RESPONDENT ARE READY TO COMPROMISE THE SAME IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent

- State.

2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

"The petitioner is praying to allow the petition and quash and modify the judgment passed by this court in Criminal Revision Petition No.3082/2013 dated 22.03.2021 and subsequently the C.C.No.276 of 2010 passed by the Senior Civil

Judge And JMFC Bhalki consequently set aside the impugned judgment and order of sentence passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge Bidar in Crl.Appeal No.6/2013 dated 17.12.2012 and thereby acquit the petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 337, 338, 304-A of IPC read with section 187 of IMV Act. The petitioner and 2nd respondent are ready to compromise the same in the interest of justice."

3. Office has raised question of maintainability of

the petition.

4. A case came to be filed, which was tried in

C.C.No.276/2010 for the offences punishable under

Sections 279, 337, 338 of 304-A of IPC and under Section

187 of IMV Act, wherein, the accused has been convicted

for the aforesaid offences. The accused being aggrieved

by the same, filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.6/2013. The

appeal also came to be dismissed by the learned Judge in

the first appellate Court by a considered judgment.

Thereafter, the petitioner herein approached this Court in

Crl.Rev.Petition No.3082/2013. This Court after hearing

the parties on merits by ordered 22.03.2021 dismissed the

revision, whereby, the order passed by the learned trial

Magistrate and the first appellate Court came to be

confirmed and the accused/petitioner was directed to

surrender before the trial Court for serving the remaining

part of sentence. In the mean time, the present petition is

filed on the grounds that the matter has amicably settled

between the parties and therefore, sought for quashing of

the proceedings.

4. In support of his argument, the learned

counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hanmanth and Others

vs. State of Karnataka in Dairy No.2505/2017 and

submits that the parties have compromised the matter

amicably, this Court can be exercised power under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. and quash/modify the conviction order.

5. This Court having heard the matter and passed

an order on merits in Crl.Rev.Petition No.3082/2013

confirming the order passed in C.C.No.276/2010, which

was confirmed in Crl.A.No.6/2013 has become functus

officio. The remedy of the petitioner, if any, to challenge

the order of this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

As such, the office has rightly raised the objection with

regard to maintainability of the petition.

6. Suffice to say that if the order passed by this

Court in Crl.Rev.Petition No.3082/2013 is to be further

modified in the present petition is not only legally

impermissible, but, also results in setting up of wrong

precedent. This Court having passed an order on merits,

the Court is not having any power review its earlier order

in view of Section 362 of Cr.P.C.

7. Moreover, the alleged amicable

settlement/compromise has taken place after passing of

the order on merits in Crl.Rev.Petition No.3082/2013,

which would be in the nature of nullifying the conviction

order passed by the duly constituted Court.

8. Accordingly, viewed from any angle, this Court

is of the considered opinion that the petition cannot be

entertained further. Hence, office objection regarding

maintainability of the petition is upheld and petition is

dismissed as not maintainable.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Srt