High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a Lok Adalath order allowing compounding of compoundable offences. The Court held the settlement was valid, registered offences were compoundable, and no evidence existed of specific terms like delivery of mangalyasutra.
The writ petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO.5295/2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE R/O MELURU VILLAGE, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT- 562 105.
… PETITIONERS
[BY SRI SUBRAHMANYA P.D., ADVOCATE (THROUGH V.C.)]
AND:
2
… RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. B.G. NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 AND R-3 – SERVED]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER/AWARD DATED 14.09.2019 MADE IN C.C.NO.158/2018 ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE LOK ADALATH, SITTING AT SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, GOWRIBIDANUR, RECORDING COMPROMISE AND ALLOWING COMPOUNDING OF THE OFFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 506 AND 323 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC BETWEEN THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND THE R-2 AND R-3 BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying
this Court to issue writ of certiorari or order or direction in like
nature setting aside the order/award dated 14.09.2019 made in
C.C.No.158/2018 passed by the Lok Adalath sitting at Senior
3
Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Gowribidanur, recording compromise and allowing compounding of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC between petitioner No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 being arbitrary, erroneous and not sustainable in law and to restore the proceedings in C.C.No.158/2018.
and hence the application is filed. The order also discloses that the complainant and the accused persons wants to end their
4
dispute and put an end to the enmity. Hence, the complainant and the accused wants to end their dispute to avoid future complications. In view of the contents of the petition and in the interest of both the parties and so also public at large, the parties are permitted to compromise the case. It is also mentioned that the offences which have been invoked against respondent Nos.2 and 3 are compoundable and hence the application was allowed and permitted to compound the offences.
5
learned Magistrate has not conducted proper enquiry and also followed the procedure contemplated under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and hence it requires interference of this Court.
6
Nos.2 and 3, the matter was taken up before the Lok Adalath and the matter was settled and the learned Magistrate also exercised the powers under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., since the offences invoked against respondent Nos.2 and 3 are compoundable offences.
7
Authorities Act also permits compounding of the offences which are compoundable in nature. Hence, the very contention of the petitioners that Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act has been exceeded cannot be accepted.
8
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
MD
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compounding of compoundable offences by a Lok Adalath under Section 320 Cr.P.C. reads with Section 20 Legal Services Authorities Act was arbitrary and erroneous.
Whether a petition can be entertained suggesting that accused failed to deliver a mangalyasutra as part of a settlement agreement.
Whether the learned Magistrate exceeded jurisdiction in allowing compounding of offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 323 IPC.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Smt. Lalithamma
Kumar Bharath
State of Karnataka
Santhosh
Nikhil
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
