Karnataka High Court
Lingaraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 September, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:31728
CRL.A No. 440 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 440 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. LINGARAJU
S/O KULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
2. JAYARAMU
S/O LATE B. KALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/O KODAGALLI VILLAGE
T.NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. CHRISTOPHER NOEL A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA BY BANNUR POLICE
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 1.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., SPP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED:14.3.12 PASSED BY THE PRL.DIST. AND SJ,
MYSORE IN S.C.NO.63/10-CONVICTING THE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:31728
CRL.A No. 440 of 2012
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S.341, AND 324 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The Appellants/Accused No.1 and 2 have
challenged their conviction order passed in S.C
No.63/2010 for the offence under Sections 341, 324 of IPC
and read with Section 34 of IPC, sentencing the
appellants/accused No.1 and 2 to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of
Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment
for three months, for the offence under Section 324 of IPC
and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section
341 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The incident is said to have happened on
04.10.2009 stating that the complainant has lodged
complaint against maternal uncle of appellants and in the
said incident, PW.1 sustained injuries. During the
pendency of this appeal, an application came to be filed
NC: 2023:KHC:31728
CRL.A No. 440 of 2012
under Section 320 and 482 of Cr.P.C. The said application
has been signed by appellants/accused No.1 and 2 and
Pw.1-complainant Sri. Boregowda and it is enclosed with
the copy of Adhar Card of PW.1. The appellants No.1 and 2
and PW.1 are present before the Court. PW.1 submits
that, he entered into compromise, voluntarily without any
pressure from anybody.
3. The offence for which the appellants were
convicted was under Section 324 of I.P.C, which is not
compoundable in nature and for the offence punishable
under Section 341 of IPC which is compoundable in
nature. IA.No.1/2023 is filed not only under Section 320 of
Cr.P.C, but also 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 in Paragraph Nos. 13, 14 and 19 thus:
"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
NC: 2023:KHC:31728
CRL.A No. 440 of 2012
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 extraordinary 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
NC: 2023:KHC:31728
CRL.A No. 440 of 2012
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).
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."
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
NC: 2023:KHC:31728
CRL.A No. 440 of 2012
respect of offences 'compoundable'
within the statutory framework, the
extraordinary 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."
4. The appellants/accused No.1 and 2 and PW.1 are
residing in the same area. The case on hand does not fall
under any of the categories stated in paragraph Nos.14
and 19 of the Judgment referred to supra.
5. In view of the settlement of the matter between
PW.1 and appellants/accused No.1 and 2, this Court can
NC: 2023:KHC:31728
CRL.A No. 440 of 2012
exercise its extraordinary power vested under section 482
of Cr.P.C. In view of the settlement between the PW.1 and
appellants/accused No.1 and 2 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
appellants/accused No.1 and 2 are deemed to have been
acquitted of the offences under section 341 and 324 of
I.P.C for all intent and purposes.
6. In view of the disposal of the appeal, IA
No.1/2023 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PNV,RMS
CT:SNN
