Vaman S/O Manjayya Moger vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3087 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH
       DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
                        BEFORE
     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.100228/2021

BETWEEN:

1 . VAMAN S/O MANJAYYA MOGER
    AGE 23 YEARS,
    OCC. RYOT,

2 . MANJAYYA S/O VENKATAPPA MOGER
    AGE 48 YEARS,

3 . SMT. LAXMI W/O MANJAYYA MOGER
    AGE 41 YEARS,

4 . SMT JANAKI W/O DIVAKAR MOGER
    AGE 25 YEARS,

5 . DINAKAR S/O VENKATAPA MOGER
    AGE 28 YEARS,

6 . SMT. RUKMINI D/O MANJAYYA MOGER
    AGE 21 YEARS,

7 . LAXMAN S/O VENKATAPPA MOGER
    AGE 43 YEARS,

8 . MAHADEV S/O VENKATAPPA MOGE
    AGE 41 YEARS,

9 . KUSMA W/O MANJAYYA MOGER
    AGE 27 YEARS,
                              2



10 . SMT MALLI W/O MAHADEV MOGER
     AGE 35 YEARS,

   ALL ARE R/O KARIKALLU,
   MAVINKURVA ,
   TQ BHATKAL
   581320
                                     ...PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI VENKATESH M.KHARVI AND
    SHRI VINAYAK HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BHATKAL P S ,
R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH CORT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580011.
                                    ...RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT,
    SHRI NAGARAJ E.H., ADV. FOR COMPLAINANT)

       THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W

401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE REVISION BY SETTING

ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY PRINCIPAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR IN CRL.APPEAL

NO.176/2007 DATED 02.09.2021 AND ORDER PASSED BY PRINCIPAL

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHATKAL IN CC NO.202/2004 DATED

27.09.2007 FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 498A, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC

AND ETC.,


       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                              3



                                       ORDER

The judgment and order dated 27.09.2007 passed

by the Court of JMFC, Bhatkal, in C.C.No.202/2004

convicting and sentencing the accused/petitioners for

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 and

506 read with Section 149 of IPC, confirmed by the

Court of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Uttara

Kannada, Karwar, in Crl.A.No.176/2007 dated

02.09.2021 is under challenge in this Criminal Revision

Petition.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that

accused No.1 married the complainant/Smt.Radha on

19.12.2002 at Kolluru Mookambika temple. At the

time of marriage, the accused persons demanded Rs.1

lakh as dowry from the complainant and after

negotiations, Rs.50,000/- was given to accused No.2.

After the marriage, all the accused subjected the

complainant to physical and mental harassment on the

ground that the dowry given was not sufficient and

they started demanding another sum of Rs.50,000/-.

Further, they abused the complainant in filthy

language and threatened her with dire consequences

and thereby, committed the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of

IPC.

3. It is submitted that accused No.4

Smt.Janaki, died during pendency of the appeal before

the Sessions Court.

4. A joint memo has been filed by the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners, signed by the

complainant as well as the accused persons stating

that the complainant has compromised the matter

amicably and voluntarily without any pressure and

threat. Now, both the complainant as well as accused

No.1 are residing independently and living a peaceful

life and in order to maintain good relationship, they

have compromised the matter. It is also stated that

the complainant has received a sum of Rs.45,000/-

from petitioner No.1 as compensation and considering

her future, she has agreed not to prosecute the

petitioners further and she has no objection to set

aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the

Courts below.

5. The complainant is present before the Court.

She is represented by learned counsel, Shri Nagaraj

E.H. She submits that she has amicably settled all the

disputes without any coercion or pressure, in order to

live a peaceful life in future. She submits that she is

leading an independent life and therefore, to maintain

good relationship, she has entered into a settlement

with the petitioners.

6. Petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioners 2

and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1, petitioners

4, 6 and 9 are the sisters of petitioner No.1, petitioner

No.5 is the brother of petitioner No.1, petitioners 7

and 8 are the uncles of petitioner No.1 and petitioner

No.10 is the wife of petitioner No.8.

7. The learned counsel for petitioners has

placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in

Crl.P.No.5855/2017 decided on 07.09.2017. It is

useful to refer to paragraph 7 of the said judgment

which reads as under:

"7. Thus, on combine reading of Sections 320(5) and 320(6) of Cr.P.C. and the dicta laid down by Apex Court in GIAN SINGH's case, it would give a clear indication that wherever the fact would be paramateria of the directions issued by the Apex Court, even though offences are not compoundable in nature, if really parties have compounded the offences, the interest of parties requires that such criminal proceedings have to be closed irrespective of the fact that such offences are non- compoundable. Thus, in such circumstances this Court exercising its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash such proceedings whether it is at FIR stage or complaint stage, since in matrimonial cases disputes the circumstances may vary from time-to-time. Thus, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, this Court in exercise of its power available under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the purposes of securing the ends of justice and to ensure that there would be no abuse of process of law and to prevent abuse of process of the Court, can quash the proceedings. In other words, there is no bar for this Court to exercise its power under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings even when the matter is pending at appellate stage."

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in RAMGOPAL AND

ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

reported in 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 834, has observed

that the criminal proceedings involving non-heinous

offences or where the offences are predominantly of a

private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact

that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands

dismissed against conviction. Paragraph 13 of the said

judgment is extracted hereunder:

" 13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly 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 & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.3 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra)."

9. In the given set of facts and circumstances

and in view of the settlement arrived between the

parties and the joint memo filed which is signed by the

complainant, keeping in view the circumstances

surrounding the case, this Court is of the considered

view that to meet the ends of justice, it is just and

proper to accept the joint memo and consequently, to

allow the revision petition.

10. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i) Revision petition is allowed,

ii) The judgment and order, passed by the

Court of JMFC, Bhatkal, in C.C.No.202/2004

dated 27.09.2007 and the Court of Prl.

              District     and    Sessions         Judge,   Uttara

              Kannada,       Karwar,    in   Crl.A.No.176/2007

              dated 02.09.2021, are set aside,

iii) The accused/petitioners are acquitted of the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A,

504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC,

iv) Their bail bonds stand cancelled.

(Sd/-) JUDGE

Jm/-