Karnataka High Court
Venkatesh vs State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24944
CRL.RP No. 446 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 446 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
VENKATESH,
S/O LATE VENKATARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GANGONDANAHALLI COLONY,
LAKSHMIPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562 162
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LOKESH S.G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SOLADEVANAHALLI P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally
signed by HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
YAMUNA K L BANGALORE - 01.
Location: High ...RESPONDENT
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO a. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2019
PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN
CRL.A.NO.103/2018.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24944
CRL.RP No. 446 of 2020
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. Lokesh. S.G., learned counsel for revision
petitioner and Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah., learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent.
2. The lis is between the husband and wife. Wife is
the complainant who initiated criminal action which
ultimately got ended in conviction of the revision petitioner
in C.C.No.412/2018 confirmed by the First Appellate Court
in Crl.A.No.103/2018, against which the present revision
petition is filed.
3. Matter was referred to the mediation and in the
mediation, one of the terms that was agreed upon is as
per clause No.8 which reads as under:
"The 2nd petitioner has filed C.C.No.412/2018
before CJM, Bengaluru Rural filed against the 1st
petitioner and 1st petitioner has appealed against
the conviction in CRP.NO.446/2020 pending before
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. In
view of the settlement both the petitioners have
NC: 2024:KHC:24944
agreed to co-operate with each other in
closing/quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid
case".
4. In view of the same, the order needs to be
quashed.
5. Relegating the party to the one more round of
litigation by filing an application under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. is nothing but judicial waste of time.
6. Therefore, even though the present revision
petition is challenging the order of conviction passed by
the Trail Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court,
this Court by exercising power vested in this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., passes the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal revision petition is allowed in terms of
the settlement between the mediation center,
the order of sentence stands quashed.
ii) Fine amount if any deposited by the
accused-revision petitioner shall be re-funded
NC: 2024:KHC:24944
to the accused-revision petitioner under due
identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LDC
CT: BHK
