Karnataka High Court
Parashuram S/O Basappa Dundi vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7617
CRL.RP No. 100073 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100073 OF 2022
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
PARASHURAM S/O. BASAPPA DUNDI,
AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. AUTO DRIVER,
R/AT. 8TH CROSS, SHIVASHANKAR COLONY,
OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580 024.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT;
SRI. HIRANKUMAR J.PATEL AND
SRI. ZANZA JOSHI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
SOUTH TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI,
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,
AT. DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
(BY T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 31.12.2021 PASSED IN
CRL.A.NO.101/2019 PASSED BY THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI BY
CONFIRMING THE PART OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 02.07.2019 IN C.C. NO.3329/2017 PASSED BY
THE JMFC 1ST COURT, AT HUBBALLI, THEREBY CONVICTING THE
PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279,
304(A) OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM ABOVE
CHARGES AND ETC.,.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7617
CRL.RP No. 100073 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND)
Heard Sri. Gouri Shankar Mot, learned counsel along with
Sri Hirankumar J. Patel and Sri Zanza Joshi, learned counsel for
the petitioner/accused and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
2. The instant criminal revision petition is filed
challenging the order dated 02.07.2019 passed in C.C. No.
3329/2017 on the file of the learned J.M.F.C-I Court, Hubballi
(for short, 'the trial Court'), whereby the accused has been
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and
304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'), and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six
months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment
of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of
one month.
3. The case of the prosecution against the accused is
that, on 30.06.2016 at about 6:00 p.m., near Siddarudh Math,
Durga Hotel, the accused was driving an autorickshaw bearing
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7617
HC-KAR
registration No.KA-25/B-5161 from the main gate of Siddarudh
Math towards Naregal Hospital. It is alleged that, in front of
Minaxi Stores, the accused drove the autorickshaw in a rash
and negligent manner and due to the sudden application of
brakes, lost control over the vehicle, causing it to overturn and
fall on Kumar Nishant, who was walking on the roadside. As a
result, Sri Kumar Nishant sustained grievous injuries to his
forehead and cheek, and succumbed to the said injuries on the
way to the hospital.
4. Upon receipt of the report regarding the incident,
the jurisdictional police registered a First Information Report
(FIR), conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet
for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of
IPC and Section 3 read with Sections 181 and 187 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the MV Act').
5. The prosecution examined 07 witnesses and
marked 10 documents as exhibits in support of its case. The
trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence on record, held the accused guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. The accused
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7617
HC-KAR
was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
six months for the offence under Section 279 of IPC, and
simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence
under Section 304-A IPC, in addition to imposition of fine for
the other offences.
6. The accused preferred Criminal Appeal
No.101/2019, which was disposed of on 31.12.2021 by the
Court of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad,
sitting at Hubballi (for short, 'the first appellate Court'),
challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the
trial Court. The first appellate Court partly allowed the appeal
by confirming the conviction of the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. However, the
first appellate Court set aside the conviction for the offences
punishable under Section 3 read with Sections 181 and 187 of
the MV Act.
7. Sri. Gouri Shankar Mot, learned counsel along with
Sri Hirankumar J. Patel and Sri Zanza Joshi, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner/accused, has filed a joint memo
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7617
HC-KAR
dated 12.06.2025, signed by the petitioner/accused and the
complainant, Sri Basantkumar Kammar, which reads as under:
"JOINT MEMO FILED UNDER SECTION 359 (6)
& (8) OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA
SANHITA, 2023
Herein the advocate for the petitioners/accused no.
1 & the complainant submits before this Hon'ble
Court as follows;
That, in view of the intervention of elders the
petitioners/accused and complainant, have mutually
agreed to the following terms and conditions
mentioned below;
1) That, the complainant had filed a complaint
against the petitioner/accused on the false
allegation on one or the other reasons before Hubli
South Traffic Police Station against the unknown
persons to which the FIR was registered in Crime
No: 40/2016 for the offence Punishable U/Sec. 279,
304(A) of IPC & Sec. 3 R/w. 181 & 187 of MV Act
currently pending before this Hon'ble Court. The
dispute as aroused between the petitioner &
complainant has been amicably settled. Now,
petitioner & complainant have compromised the
matter amicably & are willing to set aside their
differences and stay as good and law-abiding
citizens. Hence in view of the same the petitioner
has filed this petition quashing the further
proceeding.
2) It is submitted that, the petitioner has paid a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/-as the compensation to the
complainant who is the father of the deceased
person before elders of their society. Since the
compensation is paid as full and final settlement to
the complainant, the complainant has come forward
to settle the above case amicably before this
Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice. Hence, this
petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7617
HC-KAR
3) The petitioner and the complainant at the
intervention of the well-wishers and the elderly
members of both the side family members decided
to put an end to the dispute between them and
accordingly arrived at a settlement of dispute and
same is without their being any undue influence,
coercion or threat from anybody out of their free
will & wish, complainant has agreed to not to
pursue any other criminal cases nor the above case
as same is personal in nature, accordingly to
facilitate compounding of the said offence alleged
by the complainant against the petitioner herein the
above mentioned petition is filed.
4) The complainant has agreed to close the
proceedings as mentioned against the petitioner
/accused, the petitioner and complainant also
agreed to give Up all their claims in respect of said
case as the dispute in question is personal in
nature. Further it is submitted that since the
dispute between the petitioners and the
complainant has been settled amicably and the
complainant has agreed not to prosecute/contest
the abovementioned' case against the
petitioner/accused as there is no negligence of the
petitioner in the said incident. Hence it is just and
necessary to permit the petitioner and the
complainant to compound the said case instead of
subjecting the petitioner to face the trial.
5) In view of the above settlement, the complainant
is filing the affidavit along with this Joint memo of
compromise.
THEREFORE, the petitioner / accused and the
complainant humbly prays that, this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to allow the revision petition
as prayed for and grant permission to compound
the said offences and consequently Acquit the
Accused /petitioner, in the interest of Justice."
8. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that,
on the advice of the elder members of the family, the dispute
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7617
HC-KAR
has been amicably settled, and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has
been paid by the petitioner/accused to the complainant by way
of compensation.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Criminal Revision Petition No.100356/2021 dated 22.02.2024 in
the case of Deepak v. State of Karnataka, and in Criminal
Revision Petition No.100063/2018 dated 13.02.2024 in the
case of Mahammadsab v. State of Karnataka, to contend
that where the complainant and the accused have amicably
settled the matter, the Court, while confirming the conviction,
has imposed only the fine amount as agreed between the
parties. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the aforesaid
cases, has held as under:
"7. Taking into consideration the nature of offences
and the sentence imposed on the accused, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of HASI MOHAN BARMAN
AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER
reported in (2008) 1 SCC 184 has held that Courts can
consider reducing the sentence imposed on the accused
having regard to the settlement arrived between the
parties.
8. In the case of MANISH JALAN VS. STATE OF
KARNATAK reported in (2008) 8 SCC 225, wherein, the
accused was convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC, having regard to the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7617
HC-KAR
settlement arrived between the parties and considering
the affidavit filed by the mother of the victim in the said
case, wherein, she had agreed to receive an additional
compensation from the petitioner and had volunteered to
compound the offences against him, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court at paragraphs 16 and 17 has observed as follows:
16.True that in the instant case the appellant
has been found to be guilty of offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC
for driving rashly - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:3585
CRL.RP No. 100063 of 2018 and negligently on
a public street and his act unfortunately
resulted in the loss of a precious human life.
But it is pertinent to note that there was no
allegation against the appellant that at the
time of accident, he was under the influence of
liquor or any other substance impairing his
driving skills. It was a rash and negligent act
simpliciter and not a case of driving in an
inebriated condition which is, undoubtedly
despicable aggravated offence warranting
stricter and harsher punishment.
17. Having regard to all these facts and
bearing in mind the fact that the mother of the
victim has no grievance against the appellant
and has prayed for some compensation, we
are of the view that a lenient view can be
taken in the matter and the sentence of
imprisonment can be reduced. We are of the
opinion that the ends of justice would be met if
the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to
the period already undergone but in addition
thereto, the appellant should be directed to
pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the mother
of the deceased by way of compensation. The
learned counsel for the appellant, in fact,
indicated that his was willing to pay that much
amount. We order accordingly."
10. The joint memo filed by the parties is not seriously
disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7617
HC-KAR
Furthermore, Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC prescribe
punishment with imprisonment, or with fine, or with both.
11. Having regard to the fact that the incident pertains
to the year 2016, and also considering the age of the accused,
coupled with the fact that the accused is not involved in any
other similar offences, this Court is of the opinion that the joint
memo deserves to be accepted.
12. Both the parties are present before the Court. On
being queried, they have stated that they have understood the
contents of the compromise petition. Learned counsel for the
complainant submits that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been
received by the complainant as compensation, as agreed under
the terms of the compromise petition.
13. Upon consideration and appreciation of the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view
that a lenient view is warranted. Accordingly, the order of
sentence passed by the Courts below against the petitioner
requires modification. Hence, the following order is passed;
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7617
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) The criminal revision petition is allowed-in-
part.
ii) The judgment and order of conviction passed in
C.C.No.3329/2017 dated 02.07.2019 and
further confirmed in Criminal Appeal
No.101/2019 is hereby confirmed.
iii) However, the order of sentence for the offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of
IPC is modified and the petitioner is sentenced
to fine of Rs.1,00,000/-.
iv) Bail bonds are discharged.
v) Registry to return the Trial Court records.
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
DDU
