Allowed

Sri Prashantha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Oct 2024CRL.RP/684/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of cross criminal revision petitions filed by neighbors contesting conviction and sentence for IPC offences including arsons and assault. Relying on a valid compromise petition filed by complainants and accused neighbors, the bench acquitted petitioners and set aside lower appellate judgments.

What did the court decide?

Compounding of offences allowed; conviction, sentence, and affirmed appellate judgments set aside; petitioners acquitted.

Sri Prashantha Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:40944 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 694 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.684 OF 2024

¶5

C/W

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.694 OF 2024

¶7

IN CRL.RP No.684/2024:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. PRASHANTHA, S/O LATE CHANDAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶10

SRI. DAYANANDA, S/O LATE CHANDAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶11

SRI. BALAKRISHNA, S/O DHARNAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶12

SRI. SUDESH, S/O SUDHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT: MANILA HOUSE, BARYA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. - 574 241.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED MOIN ULLA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, UPPINANGADY POLICE STATION, REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:40944 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 694 of 2024

¶23

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.04.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE IV ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.116/2019 CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 20.07.2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELTHANGADY IN C.C.NO.236/2015 SENTENCING THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 341, 447, 354, 323, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC.

¶24

IN CRL.RP NO.694/2024:

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SRI. KIRSHNAPPA POOJARY, S/O ITHAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶27

SRI. SURENDRA, S/O KRISHNAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶28

SMT. UMAVATHI, W/O SURENDRA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶29

SRI. SANTOSH KUMAR, S/O KRISHNAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶30

SRI. SUNDARA POOJARY, S/O LATE ITHAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶31

SMT. LALITHA, W/O SUNDARA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶32

SRI. RAJESH, S/O SUNDARA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:40944 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 694 of 2024

¶35

SRI. ANNU PUTHILA, S/O LATE GURUVA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶36

SRI. RAMESH SHETTY, S/O LATE BABU SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶37

SMT. VEDAVATHI, W/O RAMESH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶38

SRI. BHARATH, S/O RAMESH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶39

SRI. THIMMAPPA GOWDA, S/O LATE DERANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶40

SMT. YAMUNA, W/O THIMAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶41

PETITIONER NO.1 TO 13 ARE R/AT KODIMAJALU HOUSE,

¶42

BARYA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY - 574 241.

¶43

SRI. SHEKARA GOWDA, S/O LATE LINGAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT MANILA HOUSE, BARYA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY - 574241.

¶44

SMT. HONNAMMA, W/O LAXMANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT MOORUGOLI HOUSE,

¶45

BARYA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY - 574241.

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:40944 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 694 of 2024

¶47

¶48

SRI. LATHIF SAHEB, S/O LATE ISUBU SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT SERA HOUSE, PUTHILA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY - 574 241.

¶49

SRI. RAMESH POOJARY, S/O DEVAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT MANILA HOUSE, PUTHILA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK - 574241.

¶50

SRI. CHENNAPPA BANGERA, S/O KORAGAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT KODANGE HOUSE, BANTWAL TALUK - 574 241.

¶51

...PETITIONERS

¶52

[BY SRI. RAKSHITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. VINAY KUMAR (THROUGH PHONE VC)] AND:

¶53

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, UPPINANGADY POLICE STATION, REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶54

...RESPONDENT

¶55

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)

¶56

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.04.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.116/ 2019 CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 20.07.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELTHANGADY IN C.C.NO.236/2015 SENTENCING THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 341, 447, 354, 323, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AS PER DOCUMENT NO.1 AND 2.

¶57

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:40944 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 694 of 2024

¶58

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶59

ORAL ORDER

¶60

Sri. Mohammed Moin Ulla and Sri. Rakshith Kumar,

¶61

learned counsel for the petitioners are present along with their respective parties in each of these two cases.

¶62

These two petitions are filed seeking to set-side

¶63

the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.236/2015 and C.C.No.106/2016, whereby the petitioners in both the

¶64

cases were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 447, 354, 323, 506 read with

¶65

Section 149 of IPC and in other case under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence came to be challenged before the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.116/2019 and in Crl.A.No.162/2021. The Appellate Court did not find favour with the petitioners and dismissed the appeals and confirmed the judgment

¶66

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:40944 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 694 of 2024

¶68

rendered by the Trial Court. The petitioners in both these cases are before this Court seeking to set-aside the

¶69

judgment rendered on the ground of it being illegal, perverse, arbitrary and there is a patent error committed by both the Courts.

¶70

This being a state of affairs, the petitioners in both this cases who are accused as well as complainant in the rival cases filed against each other have filed an application under Section 320(6) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to compound the offence in both the cases. The complainant in both the cases are one Smt.Umavathi W/o Surendra and one Sri. Dayananda S/o Late Chandappa Poojary. It is contended by learned counsel that, the petitioners in each of these cases have amicably settled the dispute that arises between them leading to filing of these two cases, wherein they were involved due to sudden provocation and fit of anger which forced them to go before the Court and litigate the matter from the year 2015 till this date before the Trial Court, Appellate Court and in Revision Petition before this Court.

¶71

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:40944 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 694 of 2024

¶73

At the instance of elders of their village,

¶74

relatives, friends and well-wishers they have together to put an end to this long-drawn litigation with an intention to live peacefully and amicably settled the matter. Accordingly, they have executed this compromise petition to compound the offences by affixing their signatures out of their own free will, consent and volition without any kind of threat, coercion or undue influence. The petitioners have understood the contents of the compromise petition, the affidavit and the contents on the statements made therein in the language known to them i.e. Tulu and Kannada as the same is being explained to them by the parties as well as the learned counsel on record and accordingly, they have affixed their signatures to this joint affidavit to compound the offence.

¶75

This Court has enquired the following persons who are physically present before this Court i.e. Smt.Umavathi W/o Surendra, who is one of the complainant is present before the Court, so also

¶76

¶77

NC: 2024:KHC:40944 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 694 of 2024

¶78

Sri. Dayananda S/o Late Chandappa Poojary, who is the complainant in other case is also present before this Court.

¶79

This Court has enquired so whether they are willing to compound the offence and whether they have amicably settled their differences amongst themselves to which they both have answered in the affirmative, they do not have any objections in the matter being compounded. The following persons i.e. Sri. Surendra, Smt.Lalitha, Smt.Vedavathi, Sri. Bharath, Sri. Thimmappa Gowda, Smt.Honnamma, Sri. Ramesh Poojary and Sri. Chennappa Bangera are present through video conferencing from the mobile phone of the learned counsel Sri. Rakshith Kumar as they were unable to login to the video conferencing of the Court. They have been identified by learned counsel Sri. Vinaykumar, whose registration No.KAR/1975/2010.

¶80

Learned counsel for the petitioners herein have

¶81

identified their respective parties and in view of the application filed to compound the offence though Section 354 contemplates, it is not a compoundable offence as per

¶82

¶83

NC: 2024:KHC:40944 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 694 of 2024

¶84

Section 320 of Cr.P.C., it is permissible to be compounded

¶85

by person by whom offence may be compounded is treated to be the women assaulted to whom the criminal force was used. In the present case, it would be Smt.Umavathi, the complainant in the said case she is present before the Court and she wants to compound the offence and compromise the matter in order to live a peaceful and dignifiable life within the neighborhood of same village and submits that she has not been forced, coerced nor threatened by any of other or whomsoever for entering into the compromise or affix her signature for statements recorded.

¶86

It is not in dispute that the petitioners in these two cases are neighbors of the same village and out of sudden provocation, they put the law in motion leading to the present case on hand. It is also seen that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is affirmed by the appellate Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶87

However, at the instance of elders and well wishers,

¶88

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:40944 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 694 of 2024

¶89

wisdom has prevailed on both the parties to put the quietus to this litigation and accordingly, amicably settled the matter.

¶90

Under the circumstances, in the larger interest of both the parties and to put quietus to the litigation between the parties, who are living in the same village as neighbors, this Court is of the opinion that the offences are compoundable, accordingly the application would be favorably considered.

¶91

In view of the above, I pass the following:

¶92

ORDER

¶93

i. This Criminal Revision Petitions are hereby disposed off in terms of the compromise;

¶94

ii. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.07.2019 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Belthangady in C.C.No.236/2015 and order of sentence dated 25.10.2021 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Belthangady in C.C.No.106/2016, affirmed by the IV

¶95

11 -

¶96

NC: 2024:KHC:40944 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 694 of 2024

¶97

Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru in Crl.A.No.116/2019 and in Crl.A.No.162/2021 are hereby set-aside.

¶98

iii. The offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 447, 354, 323, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and in other under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC are hereby compounded.

¶99

iv. The petitioners/accused are hereby acquitted for the aforesaid offences.

¶100

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶101

GRD

¶102

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 93

Sri Prashantha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prashantha v. the 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

Smt Vijayalakshmi Vs Sri Felix

Smt Deeparani C R Vs Sri N Bhojaraju

M Bheemaiah @ Raja Vs M M Ganapathy

Gg Finance Corporation (R) Vs Shyalaja S

Gg Finance Corporation (R) Vs Deepashree T

Sri Anand S/O Basalingappa Maigur Vs the Managing Director