in Sessions Case No.90/2022 by III Addl. District and
Accused No.1 to 7 are hereby sentenced to
pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default shall
undergo simple imprisonment for six months for
the offence under Section 147 of IPC.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1630
HC-KAR
Accused No.1 to 7 are hereby sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for one year for
the offence under Section 148 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 7 are hereby sentenced to
pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default shall
undergo simple imprisonment for six months for
the offence under Section 323 R/w Sec.149 of
IPC.
Accused No.1 to 7 are hereby sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for one year and
to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default shall
undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the
offence under Section 354 R/w Sec.149 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 7 are hereby sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for three years
and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default
shall undergo simple imprisonment for one
month for the offence under Section 326 R/w
Sec.149 of IPC.
(Each accused shall deposit fine of Rs.6,500/-)
The substantive sentence of imprisonment
referred above shall run concurrently."
2. Learned counsel for the appellants and learned
counsel for the defacto complainant have jointly filed an
application under Section 359 r/w Section 528 of BNSS,
2023, to permit them to compound the offences and
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1630
HC-KAR
thereby set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of
sentenced passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
3. The application is accompanied with the
affidavit of appellant No.1-Ramappa on behalf of other
appellants and affidavit of defacto complainant-Mariyappa.
It is stated in the affidavits that, after the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, with the intervention of
the elder persons and well wishers in the family, they have
settled their dispute amicably, since they are neighbours
and belongs to the same village. As such, it is stated by
the defacto complainant and the other injured persons
that the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge
may be set aside by allowing the application.
4. No doubt the offence involved in this case under
Section 326 of IPC is non-compoundable in nature, since
the parties are neighbours, who belongs to the same
village and the alleged incident is purely private in nature,
the same do not have any serious impact on the society.
In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1630
HC-KAR
of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and
Others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, at paragraph
No.15 as follows:
"15. Considering the law on the point and the
other decisions of this Court on the point, referred
to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
15.1. That the power conferred under Section
482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings
for the non-compoundable offences under Section
320 of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil
character, particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes and
when the parties have resolved the entire dispute
amongst themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in
those prosecutions which involved heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are
not private in nature and have a serious impact on
society;
15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be
exercised for the offences under the special
statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity are not to be quashed
merely on the basis of compromise between the
victim and the offender;
15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and
the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of
heinous and serious offences and therefore are to
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1630
HC-KAR
be treated as crime against the society and not
against the individual alone, and therefore, the
criminal proceedings for the offence under Section
307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a
serious impact on the society cannot be quashed
in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the
Code, on the ground that the parties have
resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves.
However, the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention of
Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed
under this provision. It would be open to the High
Court to examine as to whether incorporation of
Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence,
which if proved, would lead to framing the charge
under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would
be open to the High Court to go by the nature of
injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on
the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by
the High Court would be permissible only after the
evidence is collected after investigation and the
charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or
during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible
when the matter is still under investigation.
Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6
and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder
Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6
SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read
harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the
circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5 While exercising the power under
Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal
proceedings in respect of non-compoundable
offences, which are private in nature and do not
have a serious impact on society, on the ground
that there is a settlement/compromise between
the victim and the offender, the High Court is
required to consider the antecedents of the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1630
HC-KAR
accused; the conduct of the accused, namely,
whether the accused was absconding and why he
was absconding, how he had managed with the
complainant to enter into a compromise, etc."
5. Collocating the above principles of the Hon'ble
Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of this case,
since the parties have amicably settled their dispute and
living peacefully, they are permitted to compound the
offences. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(a) The appeal is allowed.
(b) The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 03.02.2024 passed in
Sessions Case No.90/2022 by III Addl. District
and Sessions Judge, Raichur, sitting at
Sindhanur, for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 354 and 326 r/w
Section 149 of IPC, 1860, is hereby set-aside.
(c) The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 7 are
acquitted for the charges levelled against
them.
(d) Bail bond of the accused and that of their
sureties shall stand cancelled.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1630
HC-KAR
(e) Fine amount, if any, deposited by accused is
ordered to be refunded to them on due
identification.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
MSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32
