Karnataka High Court
Shri.Pradeep S/O Venkatesh Nannyad vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3673
CRL.A No. 100130 of 2019
C/W CRL.A No. 100139 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100130 OF 2019
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100139 OF 2019
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100130 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SHRI PRADEEP S/O VENKATESH NANNYAD,
AGE: 19 YEARS, R/O: YALLAPUR ONI,
NEAR HANAMANTADEVAR TEMPLE,
HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH M KHARVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GHANTIKERI P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY
ANNAPURNA STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
CHINNAPPA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DANDAGAL
DHARWAD.
Digitally signed by
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL
Date: 2024.02.20 ...RESPONDENT
10:52:51 +0530
(BY SRI T.P.MALIPATIL, AGA)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.PC.
SEEKING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED 19.03.2019 PASSED BY THE I-ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI, IN S.C.NO.32/2015, FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 504 & 326 OF IPC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3673
CRL.A No. 100130 of 2019
C/W CRL.A No. 100139 of 2019
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100139 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI NARAYAN S/O MAHADEVAPPA NANNYAD
AGE: 50 YEARS, R/O: YALLAPUR ONI,
NEAR HANAMANTADEVAR TEMPLE,
HUBBALLI.
2. SHRI VENKATESH S/O MAHADEVAPPA
NANNYAD, AGE: 60 YEARS,
R/O: YALLAPUR ONI,
NEAR HANAMANTADEVAR TEMPLE,
HUBBALLI.
3. SMT. CHOUDAMMA @ CHOUDESHWARI
W/O NARAYAN NANNYAD
AGE: 40 YEARS, R/O: YALLAPUR ONI,
NEAR HANAMANTADEVAR TEMPLE,
HUBBALLI.
4. SMT. SAVITRI W/O VENKATESH NANNYAD
AGE: 45 YEARS, R/O: YALLAPUR ONI,
NEAR HANAMANTADEVAR TEMPLE,
HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI VENKATESH M KHARVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GHANTIKERI P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T.P.MALIPATIL, AGA)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3673
CRL.A No. 100130 of 2019
C/W CRL.A No. 100139 of 2019
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED 19.03.2019 PASSED BY THE I-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS
JUDGE, HUBBALLI, IN S.C.NO.32/2015 FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 143
& 504 OF IPC SO FAR AS PETITIONER NO.1 TO 4/ACCUSED NO.2 TO
5 IS CONCERNED IN THE ABOVE APPEAL.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. These two appeals arise out of judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 19.03.2019 passed
by the Court of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Dhaward, sitting at Hubli in S.C.No.32/2015 arising out of
Crime No.50/2014 registered by the Ghantikeri Police
Station, Hubballi for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 354, 504 read with Section
149 of IPC.
2. Crl.A.No.100130/2019 is filed by accused No.1
and Crl.A.No.100139/2019 is filed by accused Nos.2 to 5
in the aforesaid case.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3673
4. Facts leading to filing of these two appeals,
narrated briefly are, the complainant Smt. Jyoti,
W/o Gadigeppagouda Patil, had lodged a complaint before
the Gantikeri Police Station, Hubballi, wherein it was
averred that she had come to her parents house for
celebrating Nagarapanchami festival and on 06.08.2014 at
about 11.30 a.m., there was a quarrel between her
mother and accused in respect of constructing a common
wall near their house. Accused persons allegedly abused
and assaulted complainant's mother and in the said
incident, complainant's mother Neelavva Basanala, W/o
Sankappa Basanala, had suffered grievous injuries.
Immediately thereafter, she was shifted to Hospital with
the help of CW 10 and CW11. Thereafter, a complaint was
lodged, based on which, FIR in Crime No.50/2014 was
registered by Gantikeri Police station for the offences
punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 307, 354, 504
read with Section 149 of IPC.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3673
5. In the said case, after investigation, charge
sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 5, who are the
appellants herein. Since accused claimed to be tried before
the Trial Court, prosecution in support of its case, had
examined 19 witnesses as PW1 to PW19 and also got
marked 22 documents as Exs.P1 to P22. On behalf of
accused, three documents were got marked as Ex.D1 to
D3. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments
addressed on both sides vide the impugned judgment and
order, while acquitting accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with
Section 149 of IPC, had convicted accused Nos.1 to 5 for
the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 504 of
IPC. Accused No.1 was also convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 326 of IPC. For the offence
punishable under Section 326 of IPC, accused No.1 was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of four years and also to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh. For the
offence punishable under Sections 143 and 504 of IPC,
accused Nos. 1 to 5 were sentenced to pay fine of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3673
Rs.10,000/- each and in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one month each, for both the
offences. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order
of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court,
accused Nos.1 to 5 are before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the incident in question had taken place between the
neighbourers. The dispute between the parties has been
now amicably settled at the intervention of the elders and
well wishers of both parties. The parties have decided to
report settlement before the Court and complainant Smt.
Jyothi W/o gadigeppagouda Patil (PW1), who is the
daughter of the injured Smt. Neelavva, is present before
the Court along with her Advocate. He submits that parties
are filing two separate applications seeking permission of
this Court to compound the offences for which the
appellants herein have been convicted by the Trial Court.
7. Learned HCGP, on the other hand, submits that
offences punishable under Sections 326 and 143 of IPC are
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3673
non-compoundable offences and therefore, the parties
cannot be permitted to compound the offences. PW1 -
Smt.Jyoti, who is present in person before the Court along
with her Advocate states that her mother, who was the
victim in the present case has died on 06.04.2022 i.e.,
after accused were convicted by the Trial Court. She also
submits that parties have settled their dispute with an
intention to lead a good life in future. She submits that the
accused persons have come forward to pay the expenses
incurred by the family of the victim for her treatment and
she also submits that she has received a sum of Rs.5 lakhs
in cash from accused No.1.
8. The applications filed by the parties are taken
on record.
9. In the affidavit, which is filed in support of the
applications, the complainant Smt. Jyoti, W/o
Gadigeppagouda Patil (PW1) has admitted that she has
received a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from accused No.1 and it is
also stated that the dispute between the parties has been
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3673
amicably settled at the intervention of elders and well
wishers of the parties.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ramgopal and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
in Criminal Appeal No.1489/2012 decided on 29.09.2021
in paragraph Nos.12 to 14 has observed as follows:-
"12. The High Court, therefore, having
regard to the nature of the offence and the fact
that parties have amicably settled their dispute
and the victim has willingly consented to the
nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash
such proceedings in exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., even if the
offences are non-compoundable. The High
Court can indubitably evaluate the
consequential effects of the offence beyond the
body of an individual and thereafter adopt a
pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony,
even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with
or paralyze the very object of the
administration of criminal justice system.
13. It appears to us that criminal
proceedings involving non-heinous offences or
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3673
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 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
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3673
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 v. State of
Punjab and Others 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."
11. In the case of Shakuntala Sawhney vs.
Kaushalya Sawhney reported in (1979) 3 SCR 639, the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3673
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed at Page No.642 as
under:-
"4. ...The finest hour of justice arrives
propitiously when parties, despite falling apart,
bury the hatchet and weave a sense of
fellowship or reunion. In the present case,
Counsel today put in a joint statement signed
by the parties setting down the terms on which
they have agreed. We consider it a success of
the finer human spirit over its baser tendency
for conflict."
12. In the present case, the incident in question
had taken place between the two parties, who are
undisputedly neighbours, with regard to construction of a
common wall. In the said incident, the victim, who is the
mother of the complainant had suffered grievous injuries.
Though the offences punishable under Sections 326 and
143 of IPC are not compoundable, the said offences are
predominantly private in nature. From the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it could be clearly said
that the alleged offences in the present case do not have a
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3673
potential to impact the Society at large. It is not in dispute
that accused do not have any criminal antecedents.
Accused No.1 was aged about 19 years as on the date of
the incident. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are ladies. Accused
Nos.1 to 5 are members of the same family. Under the
circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that in
exercise of the appeal powers, though this Court cannot
permit the parties to compound the offences for which
they have been convicted by the Trial Court, if the
sentence imposed on them is reduced taking into
consideration the peculiar set of facts and circumstances
of the case, the ends of justice would be met. Accordingly,
the following:-
ORDER
(i) The appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The judgment and order of
conviction passed by the Court of I Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at
Hubli in S.C.No.32/2015 dated 19.03.2019
convicting the appellants herein for the offences
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3673
punishable under Sections 143 and 504 of IPC
and also convicting appellant No.1 for the
offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, is
confirmed.
(iii) The order of sentence passed by the
Trial Court is modified as under:-
a) for the offences punishable under
Section 326 of IPC, accused No.1 is
sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month
and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.
b) for the offence punishable under
Section 143 of IPC, appellants/accused
Nos.1 to 5 are sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- each and in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of 15 days.
c) for the offence punishable under
Section 504 of IPC, appellants/accused
Nos.1 to 5 are sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- each and in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of 15 days.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3673
(iv) Acting under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.,
set-off is given to accused No.1 for the period,
which he has already been in judicial custody
during trial.
(v) If the accused have already deposited
the fine amount before the Trial Court, the
excess amount, if any, shall be refunded to
them by the Trial Court, after verifying their
identity.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DN
CT:GSM
