Disposed

Manjula W/O. Kolibasappa v. Kolibasappa @ Kolidoddabasappa

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2022CRL.A/100150/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal, the court examined a joint affidavit and compromise agreement between parties. Finding the offences compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., the court allowed the application, disposed of the appeal, and noted the withdrawal of prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. allowed; Criminal Appeal disposed of in terms of compromise.

Manjula W/O. Kolibasappa Vs Kolibasappa @ Kolidoddabasappa — Karnataka HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

CRL.A No. 100150 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100150 OF 2015

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MANJULA W/O. KOLIBASAPPA @ KOLIDODDABASAPPA AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. HITNAL POST POST: MUNIRABAD TQ and DIST: KOPPAL

¶10

..…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. M AMAREGOUDA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

KOLIBASAPPA @ KOLIDODDABASAPPA S/O. LATE NINGAPPA AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. CHILKANHATTI, TQ: HOSPET DIST: BALLARI

¶14

HULIGEMMA W/O. KOLIBASAPPA @ KOLIDODDABASAPPA AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. CHILKANHATTI, TQ: HOSPET DIST: BALLARI

¶15

..…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. DAYANAND M BANDI.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C SEEKING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND KOPPAL IN C 475/2009 DATED: 17 THE JULY 2015 ACQUITTING RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 AND CONSEQUENTLY CONVICT THEM FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 494 READ WITH SECTION 34 IPC AND AWARD THEM JUST SENTENCE AND AWARD SUITABLE COMPENSATION TO APPELLANT.

¶18

¶19

CRL.A No. 100150 of 2015

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The complainant and respondents and their

¶23

respective counsels are present before the Court.

¶24

Learned counsel for appellant submits that he has filed a memo for withdrawal stating that the parties have entered into compromise outside the Court by executing joint affidavit and the appellant does not wish to prosecute this appeal.

¶25

The parties have filed an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. to compound the offences along with joint affidavit signed by the appellant and respondent-accused.

¶26

Memo along with application filed under Section

¶27

320 of Cr.P.C. and joint affidavit are taken on record.

¶28

Perused the joint affidavit. The relevant Para 6, 7 and 9 of the joint affidavit read as under:

¶29

¶30

CRL.A No. 100150 of 2015

¶31

6. WE BOTH AGREE that Deponent No.2/Husband has given the following properties to Deponent NO.1 and her Son. These below mentioned properties are the entire extent of Deponent No.2’s share in his ancestral family properties between him and his sisters.

¶32

i) The Agriculture Land Measuring 1 Acre out of 5 Acres 88 Cents in Sy.No.20 situated in Telagbalu Village of Hisapete Taluka bounded between:

¶33

East: The Land belongs to Rajanna S/o Raghavendra Shetty

¶34

West: National Highway 13

¶35

North: Land Belongs to Nandi Halli Shetteppa

¶36

South: The Remaining land belongs to Deponent’s family.

¶37

ii) The land bearing Sy No.27 Measuring 1 Acre 12 Guntas Situated at Chilakanahatti Village of Hosapete Taluka District Vijayanagar.

¶38

iii)In the House bearing Gram Panchayat No.282 Situated at Chilakanahatti Village of Hosapete Taluka, the northern half portion of belongs to Deponent No.2 and Southern half portion belongs to family of Uncle of Deponent No.2. In this

¶39

¶40

CRL.A No. 100150 of 2015

¶41

northern portion of the house, presently, the Deponent No.1 and her son is living in eastern half portion and Deponent No.2 has given the half eastern portion to deponent No.1 and keeping another western half portion to himself.

¶42

7. We state that earlier we have fought many litigations against each other viz:i) O.S.No.:165/2006 which was filed by Deponent No.1 against Deponent No.2 which was ended in compromise ii) O.S.No.119/2008 filed by Deponent No.1 against Deponent No.2 for injunction which was decreed and the R.A.No.62/2009 preferred by Deponent No.2 and his sisters filed against such decree is dismissed iii) O.S.No.417/2012 filed by Deponent No.1 against Deponent No.2 and his sisters for declaration which was partly decreed. After all the litigations mentioned above, in O.S.No.417/2012, conclusively the decree has been passed that the Deponent No.1 herein is the owner of 1/4^th Share of the properties which would be allotted to Deponent No.2 in FDP No.2/2009 (Partition between Deponent No.2 & his sisters). The properties being now given by the Deponent No.2 in favour Deponent NO.1 are more than the 1/4^th

¶43

¶44

CRL.A No. 100150 of 2015

¶45

Share which would be allotted to Deponent No.2. As more properties are being given to Deponent No.1 than her entitlement, it is agreed between both of us that all the previous orders/decrees passed in above mentioned litigations and also any other litigations if any in respect of the properties, are culminated in this agreement and deemed to be satisfied and dissolved and are not enforceable against the Deponent No.1 or against the family members of the Deponent No.2. Its agreed by the Deponent No.1 that henceforth she has no claim of whatsoever against the Deponent No.2 or against his family.

¶46

8. The Deponent No.2 agrees and confirms that the Gift deed dated 04/12/2007 alleged to be executed by the Deponent No.2 in favour of Huligemma i.e. Accused No.2 herein does not come in the way of giving these properties to Deponent No.1. The Deponent No.1 and her son is absolute owner of the aforementioned given properties and she can exercise all the rights including alienation.

¶47

9. We have decided between both of us that the Deponent NO.1 & her Son are not entitled for

¶48

¶49

CRL.A No. 100150 of 2015

¶50

anything except the properties mentioned above either from the Deponent No.2 or from his family. The Deponent No.1 is not entitled for any compensation amount awarded on account of acquisition of the landed property in Sy.No.20 situated in Telagbalu Village of Hisapete Taluka by National Highway Authority of India. Now the Deponent No.1 has affirmed that she is not entitled for the above mentioned compensation amount and she has no objection if Deponent No.2 or his family members withdrawing the said compensation amount.

¶51

On perusal of the averments in the above paragraphs, it appeared, the alleged offences are compoundable and there is no embargo to this Court to record the compromise. Therefore, the application filed under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. filed by the parties is allowed and the Criminal Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

NAA

Manjula W/O. Kolibasappa v. Kolibasappa @ Kolidoddabasappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjula W/O. Kolibasappa v. Kolibasappa @ Kolidoddabasappa

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

Nagappa Yallappa Gotanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagappa Yallappa Gotanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagappa Yallapa Gotanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Durgappa Vs the State by Psi

Girish S/O Shivarayappa Shetasanadi Vs Basavantappa S/O Adiveppa Daddikoppa

Smt. Ujwala W/O Kashinath Pednekar Vs Mohandas Vittaldas Vernekar by His Lrs Vinaya