Allowed

K Aruna v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2023CRL.RP/670/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Revision Petitioner, convicted under IPC 420, sought compounding of the offence. The Court noted the original complainant's death and the familial relationship between parties. Citing Gian Singh, the Court allowed compounding under Cr.P.C. 320/482 and set aside the conviction.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition was disposed of. The petitioners were permitted to compound the offence, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted.

K Aruna Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 670 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRL.RP No. 670 of 2014

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K. ARUNA W/O LATE N. SUNDARARAJ AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OCC: RETIERD SERVICE RESIDING AT NO.5052 PRESTIGE WELLINGTON PARK INDIAN AIR FORCE MAIN ROAD GANGAMMA CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 013.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI C.H. JADHAV, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI CHETAN JADHAV., ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B A KRISHNA KUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY J.C. NAGAR POLICE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 AND 401 CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:12.8.14 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTCXIII, BANGALORE CITY IN CRL.A.NO.757/2009 AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED:29.6.2009 PASSED BY THE 29.6.2009 PASSED BY THE C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.5372/2005.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This criminal revision petition has been filed assailing the

¶19

judgment and order dated 12.08.2014 passed by the XIII Addl.

¶20

¶21

CRL.RP No. 670 of 2014

¶22

Fast Track Court, Bangalore City in Crl.A.No.757/2009, wherein the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

¶23

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the accused and the widow of the complainant have amicably arrived at settlement and since the parties are related to each other, he prays that they may be permitted to compound the alleged offence. He submits that the complainant has died on 04.12.2015 i.e., during pendency of the criminal revision petition before this Court and the complainant is now being represented by his wife namely Smt. Uma Rajan. He submits that accused and Smt. Uma Rajan have filed an application for compounding along with their respective affidavits and prays to permit them to compound the offence .

¶24

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GIAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB - (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held

¶25

that even the offences which are non-compoundable can be permitted to be compounded if the dispute is between the

¶26

¶27

CRL.RP No. 670 of 2014

¶28

family members. The accused as well as widow of the complainant have filed an affidavit in support of the application filed under Section 320 R/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and the parties, who are present before the Court have admitted to the contents of the affidavit and they have also stated that at the intervention of elders and well-wishers of the parties, they have amicably settled the matter. Having regard to the nature of dispute involved in the case and considering the fact that the parties have volunteered to settle the matter between themselves without there being any coercion or undue influence, I am inclined to accept the compounding application and permit the parties to compound the offence for which the petitioner has been convicted by the XIII Addl. Fast Track Court, Bangalore City in Crl.A.No.757/2009. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶29

::ORDER::

¶30

Criminal Revision Petition is disposed

¶31

of. The application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., filed by the parties is allowed and

¶32

they are permitted to compound the offence for which petitioner is convicted.

¶33

¶34

CRL.RP No. 670 of 2014

¶35

Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 12.08.2014 passed by XIII Addl. Fast Track Court, Bangalore City in Crl.A.No.757/2009 is set-aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

¶36

SD/JUDGE

¶37

NMS

K Aruna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Aruna 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.K.Lokesh Vs Mohan Kumar

Sri. Siddeshwara Gowda Vs Sri. Jyothi Jagadheeshappa

M/S Sai Mitra Constructions Vs Mrs. B Vijayalakshmi

M Lokesh Vs K Madhusudhana

D.S. Parashivu Vs M/S. Associated Electrical Agencies

Commandant (Retd) Balasubramanian Mohan Vs Ms G Sree Vidhya