Karnataka High Court
Vishwanatha vs State By Kadur Police on 3 August, 2023
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:27335
CRL.RP No. 233 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 233 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. VISHWANATHA
S/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O MANGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101.
2. RAMESH
S/O GANGADHARA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O KABBALLI,
NAGARALU POST, KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTICT-577 101.
3. SMT. SULOCHANA
W/O LATE. BASAVARAJAPPA,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
by RENUKAMBA R/O MANGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KG KADUR TALUK,
Location: High CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101.
Court of
Karnataka 4. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O GANGADHARA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/O KABBALLI, NAGARALU POST,
KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTICT-577 101.
5. SMT. LALITHAMMA
W/O LATE RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/O GUNDASAGARA,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:27335
CRL.RP No. 233 of 2016
NAGALUR POST, KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MADHU .M.T, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GIRISH .B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY KADUR POLICE,
KADUR,
REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. VIJAY KUMAR .T, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 )
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.03.2014
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
KADUR IN CRL.C.NO.956/2010 BY CONVICTING THE PETR.
AND THE SAID ORDER WAS CONFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE
COURT BY DISMISSING THE APPEL FILED BY THE
PETITIONER, THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.01.2016 PASSED BY
THE II ADDL.S.J., AT CHIKKAMAGALUR IN CRL.A.NO. 52/2014
AND THE PETITIONER TO BE ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE
ALLEGED AGAINST THEM.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The accused/petitioner - Nos.1 to 5 are present.The
complainant-CW.1:Sri.Ravi Kumar and injured-
CW.2:Smt. Sharadamma are also present before the
Court.
NC: 2023:KHC:27335
CRL.RP No. 233 of 2016
2. Sri. T. Vijaya Kumar, learned Advocate has
also filed power for CW.1-Complainant: Sri. Ravi Kumar
and the injured CW.2-Sharadamma. He has also filed an
application under Section 304 of Cr.P.C seeking leave of
the Court. In view of the settlement of the dispute
between the parties, leave is granted. The power is
accepted.
3. The parties have submitted a compromise
petition under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. read with 482 of
Cr.P.C. reporting settlement. The petitioners have also
filed their respective affidavits along with the affidavit of
the complainant and Injured:Smt. Sharadamma. They
submit that, they are the neighbours and dispute is with
regard to removal of fencing and the incident has taken
in heat of moment. Further, it is submitted that the
matter is now settled by the intervention of the elders of
the village and they intend to lead cordial life in village
by maintaining harmony.
NC: 2023:KHC:27335
CRL.RP No. 233 of 2016
4. The offence alleged against the petitioners is
under Section 326 of IPC. Both the Courts below have
convicted the revision petitioners/accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 504, 323, 326
and 506 r/w 149 of IPC by imposing sentence of
Imprisonment as well as fine. The offence under Section
326 of Cr.P.C is non-compoundable.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners/accused has
placed reliance on the decision of this Court in
Crl.R.P.No.2044/2013 [Karabasayya Vs. State of
Karnataka] pertaining to Dharwad Bench rendered on
27.09.2021. This Court by relying on the decision of
the Apex Court reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653
[Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkand]
and other citations, has allowed the said revision petition
by accepting the compromise in respect of offence under
section 326 Cr.P.C., and permitted for compromise,
though the offence was non-compoundable, in view of
the fact that the injury was not on vital part of the body,
NC: 2023:KHC:27335
CRL.RP No. 233 of 2016
no deadly weapon was used for commission of the
offence and parties are of neighbouring village.
6. In the instant case also, the parties are
neighbours and the offence is said to have taken place
pertaining to the removal of fencing. Further, the
injuries also not on the vital part of the body, as the
victim Smt. Sharadamma has sustained injury to her
wrist ie., fracture of the bone of wrist. Now they are said
to have settled the dispute at the intervention of the
elders of the village.
7. The learned HCGP is heard on this point and
he submits that, in view of the above said decision of this
Court in Crl. R.P. No.2044/2013, necessary orders may
be passed.
8. Considering the above facts and circumstances
and the citations relied, the application needs to be
allowed, as the parties have settled the dispute amicably
without any threat or coercion. They admit the contents
of the compromise petition when they are explained to
NC: 2023:KHC:27335
CRL.RP No. 233 of 2016
them in presence of their respective counsels in Kannada
language known to them. Considering these aspects, the
compromise petition needs to be allowed and
accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
i) The Compromise Petition is allowed.
ii) In view of compounding of the offences, the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 10.03.2014 passed by the trial Court
viz. Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Kadur in
Criminal Case No.956/2010 by convicting the
petitioners, which was confirmed by the Appellate
Court viz., II Additional Sessions Judge at
Chikkamagaluru, in 52/2014 vide judgment dated
01.01.2014 are set aside. The accused/revision
petitioners stand acquitted.
iii) The bail bonds executed by the accused/revision
petitioners stand cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGR*
