Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lalithamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1269
CRL.RP No. 811 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 811 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LALITHAMMA
W/O CHIKKERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
2. SRI THAMMAIAH
S/O CHIKKERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
3. SRI SHEKARAPPA
S/O CHIKKERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
Digitally 4. SRI CHIKKERAPPA
signed by N
UMA S/O CHIKKERAPPA
Location: AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA 5. SRI D B MANJU
S/O CHENNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
6. SRI. SHIVAPPA
S/O CHENNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT DINKA VILLAGE
CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1269
CRL.RP No. 811 of 2020
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY K R SAGARA POLICE STATION
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428
BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MANDYA
(SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) ON 11.08.2020 IN
CRL.A.NO.5014/2019 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA IN
C.C.NO.16/2017 ON 21.2.2019 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:1269
CRL.RP No. 811 of 2020
ORDER
1. Heard Shri K.L.Sreenivas, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Shri Rahul Rai K., learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
2. This revision petition is arising out of the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 21.02.2019 in
C.C.No.16/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Pandavapura, wherein the Trial Court convicted the petitioners
for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 326, 323, 504 r/w
149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). Being aggrieved by
the same, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court
wherein the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction against
accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences under Section 326 r/w 149
of IPC and set aside the conviction for the offence under
Sections 323, 504 r/w 149 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the
same, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the
informant - defacto complainant submit that the petitioners
and the informant - defacto complainant have settled the
dispute amicably and filed an application I.A.No.1/2024 under
NC: 2024:KHC:1269
Section 320(2) r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") of even date along with
affidavits, copies of Aadhar cards, copy of death certificate of
PW2 and pray to compound the offences under Sections 326
r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") as against
the petitioners and acquit the petitioners for the said offences.
The same are taken on record.
4. Learned High Court Government appearing for
respondent has no objection to allow the application.
5. The Petitioners and the informant - defacto
complainant are present and identified by the learned counsel
for the petitioners and learned HCGP. The application
I.A.No.1/2024 is duly signed by the petitioners, the informant -
defacto complainant and the learned counsel for the
petitioners.
6. Perused the averments made in the application and
also considered the offences for which the petitioners have
been convicted, even though the alleged offence is punishable
with imprisonment for life, considering the submission of the
complainant - PW.1 and also considering the relationship
NC: 2024:KHC:1269
between the complainant and the petitioners, it is appropriate
to record the compromise.
7. Now, it is relevant to refer to the legal proposition
in recording the compromise in respect of non-compoundable
offences which are punishable with imprisonment for life. It is
relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of NARINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB1, in
paragraph Nos.8 to 12 read thus:
"8. We find that there are cases where the
power of the High Court under Section 482 of the
Code to quash the proceedings in those offences
which are uncompoundable has been recognised.
The only difference is that under Section 320(1) of
the Code, no permission is required from the Court
in those cases which are compoundable though the
Court has discretionary power to refuse to
compound the offence. However, compounding
under Section 320(1) of the Code is permissible only
in minor offences or in non-serious offences.
Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in
respect of the offences enumerated in Section
320(2) of the Code, compounding is permissible but
it requires the approval of the Court. Insofar as
serious offences are concerned, quashing of criminal
proceedings upon compromise is within the
(2014) 6 SCC 466
NC: 2024:KHC:1269
discretionary powers of the High Court. In such
cases, the power is exercised under Section 482 of
the Code and proceedings are quashed. Contours of
these powers were described by this Court in B.S.
Joshi v. State of Haryana which has been followed
and further explained/elaborated in so many cases
thereafter, which are taken note of in the discussion
that follows hereinafter.
9. At the same time, one has to keep in mind the
subtle distinction between the power of
compounding of offences given to the court under
Section 320 of the Code and quashing of criminal
proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction conferred upon it under Section
482 of the Code. Once it is found that compounding
is permissible only if a particular offence is covered
by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code and the
court in such cases is guided solitarily and squarely
by the compromise between the parties, insofar as
power of quashing under Section 482 of the Code is
concerned, it is guided by the material on record as
to whether the ends of justice would justify such
exercise of power, although the ultimate
consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of
indictment. Such a distinction is lucidly explained by
a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab. Lodha, J. speaking for the Court,
explained the difference between the two provisions
in the following manner: (SCC pp. 340-41, paras 57
& 59)
NC: 2024:KHC:1269
"57. Quashing of offence or criminal
proceedings on the ground of settlement
between an offender and victim is not the
same thing as compounding of offence.
They are different and not interchangeable.
Strictly speaking, the power of
compounding of offences given to a court
under Section 320 is materially different
from the quashing of criminal proceedings
by the High Court in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction. In compounding of offences,
power of a criminal court is circumscribed
by the provisions contained in Section 320
and the court is guided solely and squarely
thereby while, on the other hand, the
formation of opinion by the High Court for
quashing a criminal offence or criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint is guided
by the material on record as to whether the
ends of justice would justify such exercise
of power although the ultimate
consequence may be acquittal or dismissal
of indictment.
***
59. B.S. Joshi , Nikhil Merchant] , Manoj
and Shiji do illustrate the principle that the
High Court may quash criminal proceedings
or FIR or complaint in exercise of its
inherent power under Section 482 of the
Code and Section 320 does not limit or
affect the powers of the High Court under
NC: 2024:KHC:1269
Section 482. Can it be said that by
quashing criminal proceedings in B.S. Joshi,
Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji
this Court has compounded the non-
compoundable offences indirectly? We do
not think so. There does exist the
distinction between compounding of an
offence under Section 320 and quashing of
a criminal case by the High Court in
exercise of inherent power under Section
482. The two powers are distinct and
different although the ultimate
consequence may be the same viz.
acquittal of the accused or dismissal of
indictment."
10. Apart from narrating the interplay of Section
320 and Section 482 of the Code in the manner
aforesaid, the Court in Gian Singh case also
described the extent of power under Section 482 of
the Code in quashing the criminal proceedings in
those cases where the parties had settled the matter
although the offences are not compoundable. In the
first instance it was emphasised that the power
under Section 482 of the Code is not to be resorted
to, if there is specific provision in the Code for
redressal of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It
should be exercised very sparingly and should not be
exercised as against the express bar of law
engrafted in any other provision of the Code. The
Court also highlighted that in different situations, the
inherent power may be exercised in different ways
NC: 2024:KHC:1269
to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of
opinion by the High Court before it exercises
inherent power under Section 482 on either of the
twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process
of any court, or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a
sine qua non.
11. As to under what circumstances the criminal
proceedings in a non-compoundable case be
quashed when there is a settlement between the
parties, the Court provided the following guidelines:
"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal
proceeding having regard to the facts that
the dispute between the offender and the
victim has been settled although the offences
are not compoundable, it does so as in its
opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings
will be an exercise in futility and justice in the
case demands that the dispute between the
parties is put to an end and peace is
restored; securing the ends of justice being
the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes
are acts which have harmful effect on the
public and consist in wrongdoing that
seriously endangers and threatens the well-
being of the society and it is not safe to leave
the crime-doer only because he and the
victim have settled the dispute amicably or
that the victim has been paid compensation,
yet certain crimes have been made
compoundable in law, with or without the
permission of the court. In respect of serious
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1269
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. or
other offences of mental depravity under IPC
or offences of moral turpitude under special
statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act
or the offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity, the settlement
between the offender and the victim can
have no legal sanction at all. However,
certain offences which overwhelmingly and
predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen
out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony,
particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the
family dispute, where the wrong is basically
to the victim and the offender and the victim
have settled all disputes between them
amicably, irrespective of the fact that such
offences have not been made compoundable,
the High Court may within the framework of
its inherent power, quash the criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is
satisfied that on the face of such settlement,
there is hardly any likelihood of the offender
being convicted and by not quashing the
criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty
and ends of justice shall be defeated. The
above list is illustrative and not exhaustive.
Each case will depend on its own facts and no
hard-and-fast category can be prescribed."
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1269
12. Thereafter, the Court summed up the legal
position in the following words:
"61. The position that emerges from the
above discussion can be summarised thus: the
power of the High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or an FIR or a complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct
and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences
under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent
power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord
with the guideline engrafted in such power
viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of any court. In
what cases power to quash the criminal
proceeding or complaint or FIR may be
exercised where the offender and the victim
have settled their dispute, would depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case and
no category can be prescribed. However,
before exercise of such power, the High Court
must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly
quashed even though the victim or victim's
family and the offender have settled the
dispute. Such offences are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1269
and the offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like the Prevention of
Corruption Act, or the offences committed by
public servants while working in that capacity,
etc., cannot provide for any basis for quashing
criminal proceedings involving such offences.
But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
different footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony relating to
dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in
nature and the parties have resolved their
entire dispute. In this category of cases, the
High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the
victim, the possibility of conviction is remote
and bleak and continuation of the criminal
case would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the
victim. In other words, the High Court must
consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue
with the criminal proceeding or continuation of
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1269
the criminal proceeding or continuation of the
criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement
and compromise between the victim and the
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of
justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case
is put to an end and if the answer to the
above question(s) is in the affirmative, the
High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction
to quash the criminal proceeding."
The Court in Gian Singh case was categorical that in
respect of serious offences or other offences of
mental depravity or offence of merely dacoity under
special statute, like the Prevention of Corruption Act
or the offences committed by public servant while
working in that capacity. The mere settlement
between the parties would not be a ground to quash
the proceedings by the High Court and inasmuch as
settlement of such heinous crime cannot have
imprimatur of the Court."
On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
with regard to recording the compromise in non-compoundable
offence, there is no embargo to this Court to record the
compromise. Ultimately, the object of recording the
compromise is to maintain quietus between the parties.
8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1269
ORDER
(i) I.A.No.1/2024 is allowed. Consequently, the
Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in terms of
the compromise.
(ii) The judgment and order dated 21.02.2019 in
C.C.No.16/2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge
and J.M.F.C., Pandavapura and judgment and
order dated 11.08.2020 in Crl.A. No.5014/2019
passed by the III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Mandya (Sitting at
Srirangapatna), convicting the petitioners for the
offence under Section 326 r/w Section 149 of
IPC are set aside.
(iii) The petitioners / accused are acquitted for the
offences punishable under Section 326 r/w
Section 149 of IPC.
(iv) Bail bond executed, if any, stands cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSS
