Karnataka High Court
Sri Muniswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 February, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavarpresided Bysaj
-1-
CRL.A No. 810 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 810 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI MUNISWAMY
S/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT. GANGAMANAGUDI STREET
PAVAGADA.
Digitally signed TUMKUR DISTRICT.
by SANDHYA S ...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI MAHESH KUMAR K M, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PAVAGADA POLICE STATION
PAVAGADA (LAW AND ORDER).
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAMAPPA M, ADVOCATE
SRI S VISWA MURTHY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF JUDGMENT, CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 01.12.2016 AND TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANT
OF THE CASE AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.A No. 810 of 2017
JUDGMENT
The appellant/accused has challenged the
judgment of conviction dated 01.12.2016 passed in
S.C.No.5024/2014 for offences under Section 307 of IPC
wherein he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and with
default sentence to undergo further simple imprisonment
for 2 ½ years.
2. The appellant/accused was pestering his wife
Nagamma (PW.4) everyday to give money and harassing
her and that on 03.02.2014 at 8.00 p.m. he picked up
quarrel with her asking her for money and when she
refused, he assaulted her with hand and kicked her with
legs and with an intention to kill her he cut her neck with a
blade, causing simple injuries.
3. During the pendency of this appeal, an
application came to be filed under Section 320 read with
CRL.A No. 810 of 2017
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. along with joint affidavit of the
appellant/accused and the injured Smt. Nagamma (PW.4).
4. Today the appellant/accused and his wife
Nagamma (PW.4) are present before this Court physically
and both submit that they have compromised the matter
and they are residing together. Their settlement is
voluntary and there is no force on them and they are
identified by their respective counsel.
5. Sri. Ramappa M, learned counsel has filed
vakalathnama for Nagamma (PW.4) and he has appeared
before this Court physically. Original aadhar cards of
appellant/accused and his wife Nagamma (PW.4) are
placed before this Court for perusal.
6. The offence for which the appellant/accused was
convicted was under Section 307 of IPC which is not
compoundable. The appellant/accused has assaulted his
wife Nagamma (PW.4) with blade and caused injuries as
CRL.A No. 810 of 2017
per Ex.P4 - wound certificate. The injuries sustained by
his wife Nagamma (PW.4) is simple injury.
7. The said application i.e., I.A. No. 1/2022 is filed
not only under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. but also under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in the case of
Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 834 has observed thus
in paragraph Nos. 13, 14 and 19 :
"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 postconviction, 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
CRL.A No. 810 of 2017
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
and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).
14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences
which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on
the social and moral fabric of the society or involve
matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed
betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such
offences have the potential to impact the society at large.
Effacing abominable offences through quashing process
would not only send a wrong signal to the community but
may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous
habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a
'settlement' through duress, threats, social boycotts,
bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that "let no
guilty man escape, if it can be avoided.
CRL.A No. 810 of 2017
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."
8. The appellant/accused and Nagamma (PW.4) are
husband and wife and as stated by them, they are residing
together after the appellant/accused has been granted bail
by suspending the sentence. Case on hand does not fall
under any of the categories stated in paragraph Nos.14
and 19 of the judgment referred to supra.
CRL.A No. 810 of 2017
9. In view of the settlement of the matter between
Nagamma (PW.4) and the appellant/accused, this Court
can exercise its extraordinary power vested under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. In view of the settlement between
Nagamma (PW.4) and the appellant/accused and to
maintain harmony among them, it is deemed fit to invoke
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal
proceedings. The offence emanated out of the FIR related
to this appeal stands annulled and the judgment and order
passed by the trial Court is set aside. Consequently, the
appellant/accused is deemed to have been acquitted of the
charged offences for all intents and purposes.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSD
