Allowed

Chikkanna Shetty v. State by Nazarbad Police

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2020CRL.RP/948/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka permitted the respondents to compound compoundable offences. Relying on Soundararajan, it held compounding was valid as per the law on the date of the offence despite a subsequent amendment. Consequently, the criminal revision petition was allowed and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order of conviction and sentence set aside; petitioners acquitted; fine deposited if any to be refunded.

Chikkanna Shetty Vs State by Nazarbad Police — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.R.P.No.948/2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^Th DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.948/2011

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

CHIKKANNA SHETTY, S/O SANNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶10

2 . ANKAMMA

¶11

W/O CHIKKANNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶12

3 . PUTTARAJU S/O CHIKKANNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

¶13

4 . NAGESH S/O CHIKKANNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDENTS CHIKKALLI VILLAGE, VARUAN HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶15

… PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ S SAPPANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND :

¶17

1 . STATE BY NAZARBAD POLICE, MYSORE REPRESENTED BY SPP.

¶18

Crl.R.P.No.948/2011

¶19

¶20

MAHDEVAMMA, W/O MAHADEVASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶21

RANGASWAMY, S/O MAHADEVASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶22

CHIKKAPUTTASHETTY, S/O SANNSHETTY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶23

RESPONDNET NOS.2 TO 4 RESIDING AT: CHIKKALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK.

¶24

… RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP FOR R1

¶26

SRI.K.CHANDRA MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.04.2010 PASSED IN C.C.NO.78/09 BY THE JMFC(III COURT) AT MYSORE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2011 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DIST., AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE IN CRL.A.NO.59/2010.

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks

¶31

permission to implead the victims PW’s.2, 3 & 7 as

¶32

respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for the purpose of

¶33

Crl.R.P.No.948/2011

¶34

¶35

compounding. Permission accorded. The petition amended accordingly.

¶36

Sri.Chandra Mohan, learned counsel files

¶37

power for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Respondent No.2 –

¶38

Smt.Mahadevamma W/o Mahadevashetty, respondent No.3 – Sri. Rangaswamy S/o Mahadevashetty and respondent No.4 – Sri.Chikkaputtashetty S/o Sannashetty are present before the Court and they are duly identified by their counsel. They admit that they are voluntarily compounding the offence and seek permission of the Court for compounding.

¶39

Heard on I.A. Nos.4/2020 and 5/2020.

¶40

By the impugned order, petitioners were

¶41

convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶42

Crl.R.P.No.948/2011

¶43

¶44

The alleged offences took place on

¶45

24.08.2008. As on that date, the offences were compoundable. Only by way of amending Act 25 of 2005 which was notified on 31.12.2009 offence under Section 324 of IPC was made noncompoundable.

¶46

In Soundararajan and Ors. v/s State¹

¶47

Madras High Court in the similar circumstances held that since as on the date of the offence, Section 324 was compoundable offence, permission can be granted for compounding even after amending Act 25 of 2005.

¶48

The petitioners and respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are closely related to each other. Having regard to the same and the aforesaid legal position respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are permitted to compound the offence. IA Nos.4 & 5 of 2020 are disposed of accordingly.

1 2015(4)MLJ(Crl)566

Crl.R.P.No.948/2011

8. In view of compounding of the offence, the

¶53

petition is allowed. The impugned order of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside.

¶54

Petitioners are acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Fine amount

¶55