Karnataka High Court
Shri Rudrappa S/O Virupakshappa Hosur vs The State Of Karnaaka on 25 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3845
CRL.P No. 101084 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101084 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHRI. RUDRAPPA S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA HOSUR
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. AMMINABHAVI VILLAGE-580201,
TQ AND DIST. DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI B.NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL AND
SRI. J.BASAVARAJ AND SRI. SUHAS K.HOSAMANI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNAAKA
R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
(THROUGH MAHILA POLICE STATION),
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580011.
2. SMT. VIJAYA RUDRAPPA HOSUR
AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NEAR YEMMIKERI SCHOOL, YEMMIKERI,
BK
MAHENDRAKUMAR MALAMADDI DHARWAD-580007,
Digitally signed by B K
TQ AND DIST. DHARWAD,
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
NOW RESIDING AT. LAXMINAGAR,
Bench
Date: 2025.03.01 12:14:24
+0530 NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE, VIDYAGIRI,
DHARWAD-580007, TQ AND DIST. DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. SABEEL AHMED, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SE. 482 OF CR.P.C.
(U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, PERMIT THE PETITIONER
AND RESPONDENT NO.2 TO COMPOUND OFFENCE U/SEC 417 OF
IPC TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 16.01.2012 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-II DHARWAD BY SENTENCING THE
PETITIONER INSOFAR AS U/SEC. 417 OF IPC TO UNDERGO THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3845
CRL.P No. 101084 of 2025
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT OF 1 YEAR AND ALSO TO PAY OF
RS.10,000/- AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, THE
PETITIONER TO FURTHER UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT
FOR ONE MONTH AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice
for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel Sri. Sabeel Ahmed
has filed power on behalf of respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner, who has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 417 of IPC, is before this Court seeking
relief.
3. The petitioner was convicted on the ground that he
fraudulently induced respondent No.2 to have sexual intercourse
by promising to marry. The petitioner and respondent No.2 are
present before the Court and have filed an application for
compounding stating that they have amicably resolved the dispute
among themselves and in terms of the settlement, respondent No.2
has agreed to withdraw all the allegations against the petitioner and
has no objection to set-aside the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence. Further, the petitioner/accused has handed
a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to respondent No.2 towards full and final
settlement. The petitioner has undertaken to maintain the children
born out of the said relationship.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3845
4. The Apex Court in the case of Ramagopal and
Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1, has ruled that criminal
proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences
are predominantly 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.
5. In the instant case, the petitioner is convicted for the
aforesaid offence and the aforesaid offence is predominantly of a
private nature and not a heinous nor crime against the society.
6. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the
aforesaid decision, I deem it fit to set-aside the impugned judgment
of conviction by allowing this petition.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2012
passed by the learned II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC-II Dharwad, in
CC No.1110/2002, is hereby set-aside.
2021 SCC Online SC 834
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3845
8. The petitioner is acquitted of the aforesaid offence and
bail bond, if any, stands discharged.
9. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as not
surviving for consideration.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
JTR
Ct:vh
