Allowed

Srijayarame Gowda v. Teh State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2024CRL.P/2226/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.1 challenged a trial Court order imposing additional Rs.5,000 compensation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act after Rs.1,000 each had already been paid and he was released on probation. The High Court set aside the enhanced compensation order and upheld the original compensation.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 17.09.2021 imposing Rs.5,000 compensation set aside; earlier order dated 02.11.2018 upheld; total compensation of Rs.3,000 directed to be paid to the victim.

Srijayarame Gowda Vs Teh State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:12281 CRL.P No. 2226 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2226 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRIJAYARAME GOWDA S/O LATE KAPANI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RA/T MACHANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE BENDIGANAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571418

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SURENDRA KUMAR N, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY BENDIGANAVILE POLIE NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571418

¶13

SRI SWAMY

¶14

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

S/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT MANCHANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE BENDIGANAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGAL TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571418

¶16

SRI. S.J. SRINIVAS S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT SANTHEBACHAHALLI VILLAGE K.R. PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571605

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI RASHMI PATIL, HCGP FOR R1)

¶19

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:12281 CRL.P No. 2226 of 2022

¶21

CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2021 TO DEPOSIT THE COMPENSATION OF AMOUNT OF RS.5,000/- PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., NAGAMANGALA IN C.C.NO.393/2012, ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 17.09.2021 passed in CC No.393/2012 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala, directing the petitioner - accused No.1 and other accused to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- each as compensation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner - accused No.1 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State.

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner

¶27

was an accused No.1 along with other two accused in the trial Court in CC No.393/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. He has

¶28

been tried and found guilty by the trial Court for the said offences. At that time the petitioner moved an application seeking his release on PO Act, as there is no criminal

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12281 CRL.P No. 2226 of 2022

¶30

antecedents and he is not the habitual offender by invoking the provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act. On the day of judgment passed by the trial Court on 02.11.2018 while dismissing the application and calling for records and report from the PO Officer, the trial Court directed the petitioner and other accused to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- each as compensation under Section 5 of the PO Act. Subsequently, notice was issued to the PO Officer, report was received and after two to three years and finally report has been accepted and trial Court passed an order allowing the application filed under the provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act and directed to release the petitioner - accused No.1 on PO Act by executing the bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with a surety for the likesum for three years. However, again the trial Court passed an order under Section 5 of the PO Act for depositing a sum of Rs.5,000/- each as compensation, which is under challenge.

¶31

Per contra, learned HCGP objects the petition.

¶32

Having heard the arguments of the petitioner and

¶33

learned HCGP and on perusal of the entire material on record, especially the order sheet dated 02.11.2018 reveals that the trial Court has already invoked the provisions of Section 5 of

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12281 CRL.P No. 2226 of 2022

¶35

the PO Act and directed the petitioner and others to deposit a sum of Rs.1,000/- each as compensation and accordingly it was paid on 09.11.2018. Thereafter, a report was received from the PO Officer and finally the order was passed during September 2021, once again the trial Court imposed compensation in a sum of Rs.5,000/- each payable by the petitioner and other accused under Section 5 of the PO Act.

¶36

In my considered opinion, when the trial Court had

¶37

already invoked that provision and ordered to deposit a sum of Rs.1,000/- each and there is no reference in the final order for enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. The injuries suffered are simple in nature. In catena of decisions the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not invoked the provisions of 5 of the PO Act and the offence punishable is only under Section 324 of IPC. That being the case, the order of the trial Court in imposing the compensation in a sum of Rs.5,000/- each payable by the petitioner under Section 5 of the PO Act, as the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.1,000/- as on 09.11.2012.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:12281 CRL.P No. 2226 of 2022

¶40

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶43

(ii) The order dated 17.09.2021 passed in CC No.393/2012 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala, directing the petitioner - accused No.1 and other accused to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/each as compensation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, is hereby set aside.

¶44

(iii) The compensation already ordered by the trial Court as per the order dated 02.11.2018 is upheld and the total compensation amount of Rs.3,000/- is directed to be paid to the injured victim forthwith.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

¶47

Srijayarame Gowda v. Teh State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srijayarame Gowda v. Teh 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 K S Nagabhushana Vs Sri H B Sadashiva Jois

Sri.Harish v Vs Sri.Narayanaswamy @ Jcb Narayan

Sri Fairoz Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Boregowda Vs State by

Mr Aniruddha Mehta Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi @ Palla Vs the State of Karnataka