Partly allowed

Ramu S/O Manohar Pawar v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2013CRL.P/15215/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court rejected the argument that a non-compoundable offence could be compounded after conviction. Yet, exercising revisional power, the court modified the sentence, ordering only a day's detention for the Section 326 IPC charge.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed with modification of the sentence of imprisonment to a fine and one day's detention in court for the charge under Section 326 IPC.

Ramu S/O Manohar Pawar Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr. — Karnataka HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15215/2013

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

Ramu s/o Manohar Pawar, Age: About 38 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kallur Tanda, Taluk Humnabad, District: Bidar. … PETITIONER

¶9

(By Shri. Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka Through the police Chitguppa Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Gulbarga.

¶12

Premlabai W/o Manik Age: 68 Years, Occ: Household, R/o; Kallur Tanda,

¶13

¶14

Taluk Humnabad, District Bidar. … RESPONDENTS

¶15

(By Shri Sanjay.A.Patil, Additional State Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1, Shri Sudhir Singh Vijapur, Advocate for Respondent No.2)

¶16

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Court may be pleased to quash the Judgment dated 28.01.2008 passed by the Learned Additional JMFC at Humnabad in C.C.No.700/2007 and also quash the impugned Judgment passed by the Presiding Officer Fast Track Court-II at Bidar in Criminal Appeal No.17/2008.

¶17

This petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The learned counsel Shri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki,

¶20

has entered appearance for respondent No.2 and has filed vakalath and would submit that the complainant has indeed reconciled with the petitioner and would not want the petitioner to suffer the punishment and would place on record the fact that she has forgiven and compounded the case.

¶21

¶22

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor,

¶23

however, would strongly oppose any such claim seeking to compound the case at this stage after the petitioner was convicted for all the offences alleged and in view of the same being confirmed in appeal. The question of the complainant - second respondent, forgiving the petitioner of the acts committed by him, or compounding the case is not contemplated in law, after the prosecution has been initiated by the State. Therefore, it is immaterial that the respondent No.2 seeks to join hands with the petitioner in setting at naught the proceedings. Any such disposal of the petition on the above footing, though the conviction is also in respect of an offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity) which is not a compoundable offence. It would not be permissible to quash the proceedings if the prosecution has established the case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, compounding will not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case, as the matter

¶24

¶25

has attained finality and the conviction being affirmed by the appellate court.

¶26

In the above facts and circumstances it is true that the proceedings have reached a stage where the conviction of the petitioner is only being questioned in revision with the limited scope for interference with the judgment convicting the petitioner. But however, it is also to be taken into account that the petitioner is the nephew of the second respondent and it was a family quarrel that resulted in these criminal proceedings. The law should not prevent the parties from reconciling their affairs and leading their life as this may result in a miscarriage of justice. No doubt it is also true that an offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, is not a compoundable offence. It would however be open for this court to modify the sentence of imprisonment while the other offences are allowed to be compounded while modifying the punishment imposed restricting the same to that of fine and punishment of

¶27

¶28

imprisonment. In so far as the imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is concerned, as there is no minimum punishment prescribed under the section. This court in its opinion, would hold that a day’s imprisonment of the petitioner namely, he being detained in court, till the court rises for the day would be sufficient punishment. Therefore, the petition is allowed with the modification that the imprisonment imposed under the Judgment by the Trial Court and affirmed in appeal is modified, restricting the same to punishment by imposition of fine amount and the punishment under Section 326 of IPC is restricted to a day’s detention of the petitioner in court, till the court rises for the day and further the imposition of fine is retained. Accordingly the petition stands disposed of.

¶29

Sd/- �� JUDGE

¶30

msr

Ramu S/O Manohar Pawar v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu S/O Manohar Pawar v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh S/O Vishwanath Chawan Vs the State of Karnataka

Amaresh S/O Rangappa Barike and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka

Laxman S/O Siddappa Chinchansur Vs Smt. Pallavi W/O Laxman Chinchansur

Lakhan S/O Ruplal @ Rupchand Daka Vs the State of Karnataka

The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Malleshi S/O Kallappa

Raju Kumar Metre S/O Manikappa Vs the State through