Karnataka High Court
Ningappa S/O. Rayappa Shenduri vs State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9194
CRL.P No. 101384 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101384 OF 2024 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. NINGAPPA
S/O. RAYAPPA SHENDURI,
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YADAGUD,
TQ: HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591309.
2. NINGAPPA
S/O. KALLAPPA HUVAKKAGOL
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YADAGUD,
TQ: HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591309.
Digitally signed
by MANJANNA
3. RAYAVVA
E W/O. NINGAPPA HUVAKKAGOL
Location: HIGH AGE: 41 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YADAGUD,
TQ: HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591309.
4. BALAVVA
W/O. SIDRAM SHENDURI
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YADAGUD, TQ: HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591 309.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAM P. GHORPADE, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9194
CRL.P No. 101384 of 2024
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HUKKERI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
DHARWAD-11.
2. CHAMPAVVA
W/O. KALLAPPA HUVAKKAGOL
(GRAND MOTHER OF COMPLAINANT)
AGE: 66 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. YADAGUD,
TALUK: HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591309.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, H.C.G.P., FOR R-1;
KUM. PALLAVI PALEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND TO
QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN THE SPL.CASE NO.80/2023 AGAINST THE
ACCUSED PERSONS FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 376(2)(I)(N), 376(3), 109, 34 OF IPC AND
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012,
UNDER SECTIONS 4, 6, 17 AND PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE
ACT, 2006 UNDER SECTIONS 9, 10, 11 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE
THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I
BELAGAVI (POCSO) AT BELAGAVI, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS NO.1
TO 4/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9194
CRL.P No. 101384 of 2024
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel
Kum. Pallavi Palekar for respondent No.2-defacto complainant
and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1-State.
2. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section
482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings in Special Case
No.80/2023 on the file of learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Belagavi (POSCO), Belagavi, for the
offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i)(n), 376(3), 109,
34 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Sections 9, 10, 11 of
Prohibition Of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
3. The sum and substance of the charge sheet is that the
victim was aged 15 years 16 days as on 21.06.2021. Accused
No.1 developed relationship with the victim and solemnized his
marriage with her. Hence, on 01.02.2023, the victim gave birth
to a female child. Hence, the first informant lodged the
complaint, which led to registration of FIR and investigation.
The Investigating Officer investigated the matter and filed the
charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. Soon after receipt of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9194
the charge sheet, the trial Court took cognizance of the
offences and issued process against the accused. Taking
exception to the same, these petitioners/accused No.1 to 4 filed
this petition to quash the entire proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
accused No.1 married the victim during the year 2023 and now
got the marriage registered, soon after she attained the age of
majority. Now the family of the victim and accused are
maintaining cordial relationship in the locality. Accused No.1
and victim are residing under one roof. Therefore, the
continuation of prosecution against the petitioners is not at all
necessary and it would be nothing but abuse of process of law.
Since the alleged offences are non compoundable in nature, the
petitioners have prayed to quash the proceedings and permit
the parties to comprise the matter. Today, accused Nos.1 to 4
and respondent No.2-defacto complainant are present before
the Court and submitted that accused No.1 married defacto
complainant and they got registered the marriage before the
Sub Registrar and the dispute is compromised between them.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9194
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the
following decisions:-
1. 2024 Live law (SC) 391 Dasari Srikanth Vs State of
Telangana.
2. Criminal Petn No.6214/2022 Rama @ Bande Rama
S/o. Kumar & otrs Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
3. Criminal Petn. No.136/2020 Vijaya kumar S/o.
Mariyappa Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
4. Criminal Petition No.101756/2024 Nagesh B. Kagi
Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 State submits that in view of the compromise
arrived at between the parties, the Court may allow the
compromise and quash the proceedings.
7. Kum. Pallavi Palekar, learned counsel for respondent
No.2-defacto complainant submits that since the matter is
amicably settled between the parties and accused No.1 has
solemnized his marriage with the victim, in view of Section 482
of Cr.P.C., the entire proceedings may be quashed.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9194
8. Perused the material available on record. The defacto
complainant has married accused No.1 and she has delivered a
female baby and now she is residing with accused No.1 happily.
9. Since, the accused persons and the defacto
complainant have compromised the dispute with each other, it
will be a futile exercise, if the accused persons are subjected to
trial, since, the probability of their conviction is remote and
bleak. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties,
the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of
process of law.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr reported in
(2014) 6 SCC 466 has held at para Nos.31 to 35 as under:
"31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum
up and lay down the following principles by which the
High Court would be guided in giving adequate
treatment to the settlement between the parties and
exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code
while accepting the settlement and quashing the
proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with
direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the
Code is to be distinguished from the power
which lies in the Court to compound the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. No
doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the
High Court has inherent power to quash the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9194
criminal proceedings even in those cases
which are not compoundable, where the
parties have settled the matter between
themselves. However, this power is to be
exercised sparingly and with caution.
(II) When the parties have reached the
settlement and on that basis petition for
quashing the criminal proceedings is filed,
the guiding factor in such cases would be to
secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court.
While exercising the power the High Court is
to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid
two objectives.
(III) Such a power is not be exercised in
those prosecutions which involve heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a
serious impact on society. Similarly, for
offences alleged to have been committed
under special statute like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by
Public Servants while working in that capacity
are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the
offender.
(IV) On the other, those criminal cases
having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly
civil character, particularly those arising out
of commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes
should be quashed when the parties have
resolved their entire disputes among
themselves.
(V) While exercising its powers, the High
Court is to examine as to whether the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9194
and continuation of criminal cases would put
the accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal
cases.
(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would
fall in the category of heinous and serious
offences and therefore is to be generally
treated as crime against the society and not
against the individual alone. However, the
High Court would not rest its decision merely
because there is a mention of Section 307
IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under
this provision. It would be open to the High
Court to examine as to whether incorporation
of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it
or the prosecution has collected sufficient
evidence, which if proved, would lead to
proving the charge under Section 307 IPC.
For this purpose, it would be open to the
High Court to go by the nature of injury
sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on
the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used etc. Medical report in respect
of injuries suffered by the victim can
generally be the guiding factor. On the basis
of this prima facie analysis, the High Court
can examine as to whether there is a strong
possibility of conviction or the chances of
conviction are remote and bleak. In the
former case it can refuse to accept the
settlement and quash the criminal
proceedings whereas in the later case it
would be permissible for the High Court to
accept the plea compounding the offence
based on complete settlement between the
parties. At this stage, the Court can also be
swayed by the fact that the settlement
between the parties is going to result in
harmony between them which may improve
their future relationship.
(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its
power under Section 482 of the Code or not,
timings of settlement play a crucial role.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9194
Those cases where the settlement is arrived
at immediately after the alleged commission
of offence and the matter is still under
investigation, the High Court may be liberal
in accepting the settlement to quash the
criminal proceedings/investigation. It is
because of the reason that at this stage the
investigation is still on and even the charge
sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those
cases where the charge is framed but the
evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still
at infancy stage, the High Court can show
benevolence in exercising its powers
favourably, but after prima facie assessment
of the circumstances/material mentioned
above. On the other hand, where the
prosecution evidence is almost complete or
after the conclusion of the evidence the
matter is at the stage of argument, normally
the High Court should refrain from exercising
its power under Section 482 of the Code, as
in such cases the trial court would be in a
position to decide the case finally on merits
and to come a conclusion as to whether the
offence under Section 307 IPC is committed
or not. Similarly, in those cases where the
conviction is already recorded by the trial
court and the matter is at the appellate stage
before the High Court, mere compromise
between the parties would not be a ground to
accept the same resulting in acquittal of the
offender who has already been convicted by
the trial court. Here charge is proved under
Section 307 IPC and conviction is already
recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore,
there is no question of sparing a convict
found guilty of such a crime.
32. After having clarified the legal position in the
manner aforesaid, we proceed to discuss the case at
hand.
33. In the present case, FIR No.121 dated
14.7.2010 was registered under Section
307/324/323/34 IPC. Investigation was completed,
whereafter challan was presented in the court against
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9194
the petitioner herein. Charges have also been framed;
the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. At
this juncture, parties entered into compromise on the
basis of which petition under Section 482 of the Code
was filed by the petitioners namely the accused
persons for quashing of the criminal proceedings under
the said FIR. As per the copy of the settlement which
was annexed along with the petition, the compromise
took place between the parties on 12.7.2013 when
respectable members of the Gram Panchayat held a
meeting under the Chairmanship of Sarpanch. It is
stated that on the intervention of the said
persons/Panchayat, both the parties were agreed for
compromise and have also decided to live with peace in
future with each other. It was argued that since the
parties have decided to keep harmony between the
parties so that in future they are able to live with peace
and love and they are the residents of the same
village, the High Court should have accepted the said
compromise and quash the proceedings.
34. We find from the impugned order that the
sole reason which weighed with the High Court in
refusing to accept the settlement between the parties
was the nature of injuries. If we go by that factor
alone, normally we would tend to agree with the High
Court's approach. However, as pointed out hereinafter,
some other attendant and inseparable circumstances
also need to be kept in mind which compel us to take a
different view.
35. We have gone through the FIR as well which
was recorded on the basis of statement of the
complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the
complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused
persons because of some previous dispute between the
parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in
detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on
record viz., "respectable persons have been trying for a
compromise up till now, which could not be finalized".
This becomes an important aspect. It appears that
there have been some disputes which led to the
aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the
complainant. In this context when we find that the
elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in
the matter and the parties have not only buried their
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9194
hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future,
this becomes an important consideration. The evidence
is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In
view of compromise between parties, there is a
minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in
support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of
injuries can still be established by producing the doctor
as witness who conducted medical examination, it may
become difficult to prove as to who caused these
injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear
to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to
drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors
into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that
the compromise between the parties be accepted and
the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121
dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station
LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed.
We order accordingly.''
(emphasis supplied)
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dasari Srikanth vs. State of Telangana reported in 2024
Live Law (SC) 391 has held at para Nos.8, 9 and 10 as
under:
"8. Since, the appellant and the complainant
have married each other, the affirmation of the
judgment rendered by the High Court would have the
disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being
sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial
relationship with the complainant in danger.
9. As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise
the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India for quashing the conviction of the accused
appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court and
modified by the High Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9194
10. As a result, the impugned judgment dated
27th June, 2023 passed by the High Court and
judgment dated 9th April, 2021 passed by the trial
Court are hereby quashed and set aside."
12. The coordinate Bench of this Court in
Crl.P.No.6214/2022 considering the ratios laid down in
J.Ramesh Kamath and others vs. Mohana Kurupt and
others reported in (2016) 12 SCC 179, Gian Singh vs.
State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC
303, Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and
another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Srinivasan Iyender
vs. Bimla Devi Agarwal reported in (2019) 4 SCC 456,
permitted the parties to compromise in similar terms and in
Criminal Petition No.101756/2024, considering the above said
ratio laid down, has quashed the proceedings against the
accused.
13. At this juncture, since there are number of judgments
of the coordinate Bench of this Court, which have quashed the
proceedings on account of marriage of the victim with the
accused. Hence, I deem it proper to follow those judgments
and quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9194
14. Therefore, in the light of marriage having taken place
between the victim and accused No.1, more particularly, the
marriage being registered and a certificate being issued in
accordance with law depicting the couple to be legally wedded
husband and wife and a girl child being born out of the
wedlock, to which, the birth certificate of the child is produced,
it shows that the couple are leading a happy marital life. If the
victim is going to turn hostile in the trial at a later point in time
and the petitioners get acquitted of all the offences, sword of
crime would turn to sword of the accused. It is not the end
result that is painful or otherwise, but the process in the
criminal justice system that generates such pain. In the teeth
of these facts, glaring enough they are, if the Court would shut
its doors to the couple who are married and bringing up the
child, the entire proceeding would result in miscarriage of
justice. It is therefore, I deem it appropriate, to accept the
settlement between the parties and terminate the proceedings
qua the petitioners.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9194
ORDER
1. The petition is disposed of.
2. Impugned proceedings in Spl.C.No.80/2023 on the file
of learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I,
Belgavi(POSCO), Belagavi stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MN/ct-vr
