Karnataka High Court
Muniyamma vs State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20603
CRL.RP No. 593 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 593 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. MUNIYAMMA
W/O RAJU
60 YEARS.
2. MANJUNATHA @ MANJU
S/O RAJU
40 YEARS.
3. VINAYAKA
S/O RAJU
35 YEARS
ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENTS OF
CHANDRAMAVINAKOPPALU, SAGAR TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 470.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed by (BY SRI ABDULLA T I, ADVOCATE)
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SAGAR TOWN POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SMT. AMLA
AGED 37 YEARS
WIFE OF NAGARAJA
J P NAGARA WATER TANK
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20603
CRL.RP No. 593 of 2025
HC-KAR
SAGAR TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 470.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI N SURESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT
AND ORDERS OF CONVICTION DATED 22-11-2024 PASSED IN CC
No.515/2018 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGARA
AND THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDERS DATED 1-3-2025 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.10051/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA
SITTING AT SAGARA AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND
ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 -accused Nos. 1 to 3 have filed
this Criminal Revision Petition challenging the judgment
dated 01.03.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.10051/2024 by the V
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga sitting
Sagar wherein the judgment of conviction of petitioners for
offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 354, 504
and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (herein
after referred to as "IPC" for brevity) has been confirmed.
NC: 2025:KHC:20603
HC-KAR
2. Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.2 are
present. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for respondent No.2 are present.
3. The application under Section 359 read with
Section 528 of BNSS for compounding offences punishable
under Sections 323, 324, 341, 354, 504 and 504 of IPC is
filed (I.A.No.2/2025). The said application is supported by
affidavits of petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 is present before the Court and submits
that she is victim and she settled the matter with petitioners.
She submits that in view of settlement she has received
demand draft for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-(rupees Two Lakhs
Fifty Thousand only) from petitioners drawn in her name.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance on
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the
Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab1
"Sections 482 and 320 quashing of non-
compoundable offences in view of the
compromise between the parties. High Court
Reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303
NC: 2025:KHC:20603
HC-KAR
can quash criminal proceedings under Section
482 even though offence alleged is non-
compoundable if parties have amicably settled
their dispute and victim has no objection.
Further, this would depend on facts of each
case. Offences which involve moral turpitude,
grave offences like rape, murder cannot be
effaced bu quashing proceedings because they
have harmful effect on society and are not
restricted to two individuals or groups.
Quashing of such offences may send a wrong
signal to society. However, where High Court
is convinced that offences are entirely personal
in nature not affecting public peace and
tranquility and quashing of proceedings on
account of compromise would secure ends of
justice, it may quash the same. In such cases,
prosecution becomes lame and pursuing such
lame prosecution becomes waste of time and
energy and also likely to unsettle compromise
and obstruct restoration of peace. On facts, in
the criminal appeal before the Supreme Court,
though offences under Sections 326 and 307
IPC are uncompoundable, but considering
compromise petition filed by parties, and fact
that they were neighbours and living
peacefully, pending proceedings directed to be
quashed."
NC: 2025:KHC:20603
HC-KAR
5. The offences for which petitioners are convicted,
except offences punishable under Sections 324 and 354 are
compoundable. Offences punishable under Sections 324 and
354 of IPC are not compoundable. However, applying dictum
laid down in Gian Singh (supra), parties are permitted to
compound offences punishable under Sections 324 and 354
of IPC.
6. In view of the above, the following
ORDER
i) IA No.2/2025 is allowed.
ii) Consequently, impugned judgments of conviction
and sentence passed in C.C.No.515/2018 dated
22.11.2024 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,
Sagar and affirmed in Criminal Appeal
No.10051/2024 by the V Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Shivamogga sitting at Sagar are
set aside.
iii) Petitioners and respondent No.2 are permitted to
compound offence as referred above.
NC: 2025:KHC:20603
HC-KAR
iv) Petitioners are acquitted for offence punishable
under Sections 323, 324, 354, 341, 504 and 506
read with Section 34 of IPC.
v) The fine amount, if any, deposited by the
petitioner before the trial Court is ordered to be
confiscated to the State as expenses of the
litigation.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DSP
