Karnataka High Court
Sri K G Shivakumar vs State Of Karnataka on 29 July, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29992
CRL.P No. 4950 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4950 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI K G SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT KESTHUR VILLAGE
KORA HOBLI
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
PINCODE - 572138
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by (BY SRI. SHARANA DEEP, ADV. FOR
NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH SRI. RAVIKUMARA B R., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KORA POLICE SATION
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING - 560001
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29992
CRL.P No. 4950 of 2024
2. SRI K B HARIPRASAD
S/O BASAVARAJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/A KESTHUR VILLAGE
TUMAKUR TALUK, TUMKUR
PINCODE - 572138
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P. THEJESH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MADURAJA, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.PC. PRAYING TO QUASH THE
JUDGMENT DATED 17.02.2024 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.48/2021 ON
THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT
TUMKUR AND ALSO QUASH THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.10.2021
PASSED IN C.C.NO.251/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT TUMKUR VIDE ANNEXURE A AND B
AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29992
CRL.P No. 4950 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sharana Deep, appearing
for the petitioner, the learned HCGP Sri.P.Thejesh, appearing
for respondent No.1 and Sri.Maduraja, appearing for
respondent No.2.
2. A complaint is registered by the 2nd respondent
against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections
323, 354, 324, 504 and 506 of the IPC in Crime No.2/2014.
This petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking to quash the
order dated 17.02.2024 passed by the 3rd Additional District
and Session Judge, Tumkur in Crl.A.No.48/2021 and also quash
the order dated 08.0.221 passed by 2nd Additional Civil Judge
and J.M.F.C., Tumkur in C.C.No.251/2014.
3. During the pendency of these proceedings, it
transpires that the parties to the lis after the rejection of the
appeal against the conviction of the petitioner - accused have
entered into a settlement and have filed an application seeking
NC: 2024:KHC:29992
compounding of the offences so made against the petitioner.
The relevant portion of the application reads as follows:
" 4. It is submitted that in the meanwhile at the
intervention of the well-wishers & elders of the family
both the respondent No.2 and the petitioner have
agreed to settle the dispute amicably. Hence this
application is filed seeking permission to compound the
offences punishable under section 506, 504, 323, 354,
326 of IPC in Cr.No.02/2014 on the file of 2nd Addl Civil
Judge & JMFC at Tumkur. In view of the settlement
arrived at, the 2nd respondent/complainant has no wish
to continue the criminal proceedings initiated by him
and he has no objection for quashing the proceedings
against all the petitioners. Since the alleged offences
are punishable under section 506, 504, 323, 354, 326
of IPC which are non-compoundable, without permission
of the court, this application is filed seeking permission
to compound the above said offences"
4. The issue with regard to whether compromise can be
arrived at between the parties post conviction and the Court
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can
entertain such compromise and close the proceedings despite
conviction, is answered by the Apex Court in the case of
RAMGOPAL AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH1,
wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:
"13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings
involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are
pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled
2021 SCC OnLine 834
NC: 2024:KHC:29992
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 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 Laxmi
Narayan (Supra).
... ... ...
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 respect of offences
'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-
ordinary 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)
NC: 2024:KHC:29992
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court, right from the year 2003 in the case of
B.S.JOSHI V. STATE OF HARYANA2, which is subsequently
followed by the Apex Court in the case of NIKHIL MERCHANT
V. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION3 and in the case of
MANOJ SHARMA V. STATE AND OTHERS4 has considered the
fact that post conviction, a settlement can be accepted and
proceedings can be obliterated by the Court, hearing a petition
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
5. In the light of the judgments so rendered by the
Apex Court, which all concern the issue whether the matter
could be settled or compromised between the parties post
conviction, wherein the Apex Court has permitted such
compromise to be recorded post conviction by a Court
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and
(2003)4 SCC 675
(2008)9 SCC 677
(2008)16 SCC 1
NC: 2024:KHC:29992
quashed the proceedings and also in view of the facts obtaining
in the case at hand, I deem it appropriate to accept the
compromise so filed and set aside the order of conviction
passed against the petitioner.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned order dated 17.02.2024 passed by
the III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tumkur in Crl.A.No.48/2021 and the
impugned order dated 08.10.2021 passed by
the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., in
C.C.No.251/2014, stand quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
KG
