Allowed

Kumara N v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2021CRL.P/6815/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the trial court's order regarding sections 114 and 143 of the IPC, even though the magistrate had allowed compounding of other offences. The court reasoned that the non-compoundable nature of these specific sections necessitated their quashing upon the parties' compromise.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in respect of Sections 114 and 143 of the IPC against the petitioner are quashed.

Kumara N Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6815 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KUMARA N. S/O. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.51, HALE KAMANAKOPPALU VILLAGE, YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 571 130.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SOMASHEKARA K.M., ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶12

BY YELWALA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

SRI BASAVARAJU S/O. SRI CHIKKAPUTTA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.34, HALE KAMANAKOPPALU VILLAGE, YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 571 130.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, H.C.G.P., FOR R-1)

¶16

¶17

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 3-2-2021 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C. (II COURT), MYSURU, IN C.C. NO.3488 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF P.C.R. NO.97 OF 2018) AS FAR AS PETITIONER-ACCUSED NO.8 IS CONCERNED, AND ETC.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent No.1-State. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶22

This petition is filed by accused No.8 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) for setting aside the order dated 3-2-2021 passed by the J.M.F.C. (II Court), Mysuru, in C.C. No.3488 of 2019 (arising out of P.C.R. No.97 of 2018) for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 448, 341, 323, 504, 506 and 114 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).

¶23

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1State.

¶25

After arguing the matter for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer only for quashing Sections 114 and 143 of the IPC as they are noncompoundable.

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that, the respondent No.2-complainant filed a private complaint against ten accused persons and the case was referred to the Police and in turn, the Police have registered the F.I.R. and have filed charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 448, 341, 323, 504, 506 and 114 read with Section 149 of the IPC. During pendency of the trial, respondent No.2 and accused persons have entered into compromise petition under Section 320(2) along with Section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate acquitted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 448, 341, 323, 504 and 506

¶27

¶28

read with Section 149 of the IPC and they were set at liberty. However, while passing the order, the Magistrate has left out the provisions of Section 114 of the IPC, which is noncompoundable and though Section 143 of the IPC is noncompoundable, but it was compounded. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for quashing Sections 114 and 143 of the IPC.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Magistrate has rightly allowed the compromise application and permitted the accused persons to compound the offences, but left out the provisions of Section 114 of the IPC, which is non-compoundable and failed to verify the offence under Section 143 of the IPC, which is also noncompoundable as per the Cr.P.C.

¶30

Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the order of compromise dated 3-2-2021, the Trial Court allowed the application and acquitted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 448, 341, 323, 504

¶31

¶32

and 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC. As per Section 114 of the IPC, any person is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment of offence is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence. On perusal of the classification of the offence, Section 114 of the IPC goes along with main offence which was abetted by the abettor. Offence is committed by other accused persons. In view of the abetment, if the offence is bailable, then it will become bailable; if the offence is non-bailable, then it will become non-bailable; if the offence is compoundable, then it will become compoundable and if the main offence is noncompoundable, then the offence will become noncompoundable. However, the Magistrate, while compounding the offences, has left out Section 114 of the IPC. Therefore, in view of compromise entered into between the parties and the Trial Court has already compounded the offences, Section 114 of the IPC requires to be quashed.

¶33

¶34

With regard to Section 143 of the IPC, though it is non-compoundable as per the law, but the Magistrate once permitted the parties to compound the offences and acquitted the accused persons as per Section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C., it amounts to permission granted by the Court even though the said offence is non-compoundable. Though the Magistrate allowed the parties to compound the offences, which is noncompoundable and in view of the petitioner approaching this Court by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 143 of the IPC also requires to be quashed.

¶35

Accordingly, the petition is allowed . The proceedings in respect of Sections 114 and 143 of the IPC against the petitioner are hereby quashed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

kvk

Kumara N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumara N v. State of Karnataka

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

Sri Koradhanyamath K N Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Amit Avasthi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mehul Kiran Shah @ Mehul K Shah Vs State of Karnataka

H B Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vishwanatha K Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Balamba M S Vs State of Karnataka