Karnataka High Court
Syed Sajju @ Sajju @ Sujju vs State By Mandya West Police on 24 February, 2023
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
CRL.RP No. 592 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRL.R.P. NO. 592 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
SYED SAJJU @ SAJJU @ SUJJU
S/O AHAMMED PASHA
AGED 28 YEARS
OCC: OWNER OF S.A TELECOM
MOBILE SHOW ROOM
100 FT ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR
1ST CROSS, MANDYA - 571 427.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed (BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY., ADV.)
by B A KRISHNA
KUMAR
Location: High AND:
Court of
Karnataka STATE BY MANDYA WEST POLICE
MANDYA, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT, BANGALORE - 01.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S.397(1) R/W 401 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:10.6.14
PASSED BY THE I ADDL. AND S.J., MANDYA IN CRL.A.NO.116/13
AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED:30.7.13 PASSED BY THE ADDL.C.J
AND JMFC, MANDYA IN C.C.NO.89/2008.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The sole accused has preferred this Criminal Revision
Petition under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for short 'Cr.P.C') challenging the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Additional Civil
CRL.RP No. 592 of 2014
Judge & JMFC, Mandya (for short the 'Trial Court) in
C.C.No.89/2008 dated 30.07.2013 and the judgment and order
passed by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya
(for short the 'Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.116/2013 dated
10.06.2014.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The petitioner was charged by the Trial Court for
the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 326, 504 and
506 of IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that on 30.06.2007
at about 7.30 p.m, within the jurisdiction of Mandya West
Police Station near 100 feet road, the petitioner wrongfully
restrained CW1 - Mohammad Rafi and abused him in filthy
language with an intention to provoke breach of public peace
and threatened him with dire consequence to his life and also
assaulted him with wooden repiece causing him grievous hurt
on the left side of the cheek and further kicked him causing
bodily pain. On the basis of complaint lodged by CW1, the
jurisdictional police have registered a case against the
petitioner for the aforesaid offences. After completion of
CRL.RP No. 592 of 2014
investigation, the police have filed a charge sheet against the
petitioner herein for the aforesaid offences.
4. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated
30.07.2013 convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 326 of I.P.C and sentenced him to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 month for the offences
punishable under Section 341 of IPC and to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for 1 year for the offences punishable under
Section 323 of IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and Simple
Imprisonment for 2 years for the offences punishable under
Section 326 of IPC and also directed to pay fine of Rs.8,000/-
in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment
for 6 months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order
of conviction and sentence, the petitioner had filed
Crl.A.No.116/2013. The Appellate Court by its judgment and
order dated 10.06.2014 had dismissed the appeal filed by the
petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order
passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner is before this
Court in this revision petition
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner and injured complainant are neighbors and the
CRL.RP No. 592 of 2014
incident had taken place in the background of petty issue. She
submits that the parties have settled the dispute between
themselves. She further submits that during pendency of this
revision petition, the complainant -Mohammad Rafi has died in
the year 2021. She also submits that the dispute between the
parties has been amicably settled at the intervention of their
well-wishers and other neighbors and son of complainant
namely Farzad Ali is present before this Court.
6. On enquiry, the son of the complainant has stated
before this Court that family of PW.1 has settled the matter
with the petitioner and his family and they being neighbors are
now residing happily. He submits that the settlement was
voluntary without there being any undue influence and
coercion. The petitioner has been convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 326 of IPC. The offence
punishable under Section 341 and 323 are compoundable
offences and the offence under Section 326 of IPC is a non
compoundable offence.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of NAJEEB
V. STATE OF KERALA - 2016 SCC ONLINE KER 29209,
ISHWAR SINGH V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - (2008)
CRL.RP No. 592 of 2014
15 SCC 667, ISHWARLAL V STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
- (2008) 15 SCC 671, HASI MOHAN BARMAN AND
ANOTHER V. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER - (2008) 1
SCC 184 and JASWANT TALKIES V COMMERCIAL TAXES
OFFICER, BHILWARA - (2008) 1 SCC 188 has held that if,
the parties to the case have settled the dispute between
themselves in a case wherein the offence including non-
compoundable, the Court taking into consideration the
settlement arrived at between the parties can consider to
reduce the sentence imposed on the accused persons in respect
of non-compoundable offence. In the present case, assault was
made by the petitioner on the cheek of PW.1 with wooden
repiece and the dispute between the parties was in respect of a
petty issue. The material on record would go to show that the
petitioner and the complainant victim are neighbors and son of
complainant who has appeared before the Court has stated that
the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled
voluntarily without there being any undue influence and
coercion and they being neighbors are now residing happily.
Having regard to the aforesaid factual circumstance and in the
background of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the aforesaid decisions and considering the nature of offence, I
CRL.RP No. 592 of 2014
am of the considered view that it is fit case for reducing
sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below for the
offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and for the
offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC is
concerned parties can be permitted to compound the same.
Accordingly, the following:-
::ORDER::
Criminal Revision Petition is partly
allowed.
The parties are permitted to
compound the offences punishable under
Section 323 & 341 of IPC. Accordingly, the
petitioner is acquitted for the said offences.
The judgment and order of conviction
and sentence imposed by the Courts below
insofar as it relates to Section 326 of IPC is
upheld. However, the sentence of
imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is
reduced to the period of imprisonment
CRL.RP No. 592 of 2014
already undergone by him and he is directed
to pay fine as ordered by the Trial Court.
SD/-
JUDGE
NMS
