Allowed¶32

Sri K K Praveena v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2025CRL.A/177/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, CRL.A No. 177 of 2013, H.P. Sandesh J, decided 07.04.2025 — compounding of offence under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C on joint application and affidavit of compromise between accused and victim during pendency of appeal; reliance on Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2021] 10 SCR 499; exercise of Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C in post-conviction matters where appeal pending; conviction under Sections 324, 504 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 set aside; acquittal; Balur Police, Mudigere Taluk, Chikmagalur District.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C allowed; permission granted to compound the offence; judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.01.2013 in Spl.C.No.29/2010 set aside; appeal disposed of by acquitting the appellant.

Sri K K Praveena Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 324 and 504 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be set aside by permitting compounding of the offence under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C on the basis of the compromise between the appellants and respondent No.2/victim, in light of the principles in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

¶32

Court's answer

Taking note of the principles laid down in Ramawatar ([2021] 10 SCR 499), the compromise between the parties, the victim's presence before the Court and compounding of the offence, the simple injury sustained, and that both parties belong to the same village, permission to compound was granted; the application under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C was allowed and the appeal was allowed.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The conviction order passed in Spl.C.29/2010 dated 16.01.2013 was set aside in view of compounding of sentence, and the appeal was disposed of by acquitting the appellant.

¶33

Key takeaways

The Ramawatar caveat that Article 142/Section 482 powers in post-conviction matters are exercisable only where an appeal is pending before a higher forum was satisfied here, since the conviction was under challenge and the appeal was pending before this Court.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C against conviction and sentence dated 16.01.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Chikmagalur in Spl.Case No.29/2010 for offences under Sections 324 and 504 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. During pendency of the appeal, the appellants and respondent No.2/victim jointly filed an application under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C with a joint affidavit recording their compromise and intention to compound the offence. Relying on the principles in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2021] 10 SCR 499 (compounding/quashing on a voluntary compromise permissible even post-conviction where an appeal is pending, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C), and noting that the victim was present before the Court and compounded the offence, that the injury sustained was simple, and that both parties belong to the same village, the Court permitted compounding, allowed the application under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C, set aside the conviction order dated 16.01.2013, and disposed of the appeal by acquitting the appellant.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:14772 CRL.A No. 177 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2013

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. K.K. PRAVEENA S/O KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶10

SRI. RAJESH S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶11

SRI PRAVEENA S/O ANNAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ALL ARE R/O HOLEKODIGE, COOVE VILLAGE, BALUR HOBLI MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577160.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. LOKANATH K., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BALUR POLICE REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001.

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14772 CRL.A No. 177 of 2013

¶19

SRI. RAJU S/O KOOGAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS BEERGUR, KOOVE VILLAGE BALUR HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577160.

¶20

(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 07.04.2025)

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ESHWARA H.H., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 16.01.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS AND SPL. JUDGE, CHIKMAGALUR IN SPL.CASE NO.29/2010 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 324 AND 504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(i)(x) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989.

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

The learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/victim filed an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C and also filed joint affidavit stating that they have compromise and intend to compound the offence and in support of the

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14772 CRL.A No. 177 of 2013

¶29

same, the judgment of the Apex Court reported in [2021] 10 S.C.R 499 in case of Ramawatar V/s State of Madhya Pradesh and also the Apex Court in detail discussed the same, relevant consideration for exercising such powers or nature and effect of the offence on the concise of society and seriousness of injury with any voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim and for conduct of the accused persons, prior to after the occurrence of the purported offence and even the Apex Court in this judgment held invoking of Article 142 of Constitution quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis

¶30

of a voluntary compromise between the complainant/victim and the accused and also an observation is made that further caveat that powers under Article 142 of Constitution and Section 482 of Cr.P.C, exercisable in post conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or two other judiciary forum. In this case also, the conviction to challenge before this Court and appeal is pending before this Court. Having taken note of the principles laid down in the judgment and

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14772 CRL.A No. 177 of 2013

¶32

also in view of the compromise between the parties and also victim is also present before the Court and compounded the offence, permission is granted to compound the same by allowing the appeal and judgment of conviction is set-aside since he has sustained the simple injury and both are belongs to the same village and the same is also taken note of. Hence, application filed under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed and appeal is allowed.

¶33

The conviction order passed in Spl.C.29/2010 dated 16.01.2013 is set-aside in view of compounding of

¶34

sentence. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by acquitting the appellant.

¶35

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶36

RHS

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri K K Praveena v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K K Praveena v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Pradeep R Hattangadi Vs State by Central Burea of Investigation

Sri Padmanabha Vs Sri. Kumaraswamy N.B.

Sri. Bharath Holla K Vs Smt. Surabhi Hande

Smt v Backiya Lakshmi Vs Sri Chikkanna

Sri Karthik Vs State of Karnataka

N M Puttaswamy Vs Sri H Shivanna