Disposed¶49

Sri Anjinappa v. State by

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2025CRL.A/2391/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (S Rachaiah J, 24-09-2025), CRL.A No. 2391 of 2023: appeal under S.374(2) Cr.P.C. against conviction u/Ss. 324 & 326 IPC in S.C.No.50/2021 (Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga) disposed of in terms of compromise filed under S.320 r/w S.482 Cr.P.C.; conviction judgment dated 20.12.2023 and sentence dated 22.12.2023 set aside; appellant acquitted; fine of Rs.1,10,000/- deposited on 18-01-2024 to be collected by de facto complainant; bail bond cancelled.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal disposed of in terms of the compromise; judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2023 and order on sentence dated 22.12.2023 in S.C No.50/2021 set aside; appellant acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 IPC; bail bond, if any, cancelled; de facto complainant to collect the fine of Rs.1,10,000/- deposited by the appellant.

Sri Anjinappa Vs State by — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the amicable settlement/compromise between the appellant and the de facto complainant, the criminal appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 IPC should be disposed of on the basis of the compromise and the conviction set aside.

¶47

Court's answer

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of injuries sustained to the complainant, the court found it appropriate to record the compromise in order to secure the ends of justice.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The criminal appeal stands disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the appellant and the de facto complainant.

¶49

Key takeaways

The judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2023 and order on sentence dated 22.12.2023 in S.C No.50/2021 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga are set aside.ratio¶50
The appellant is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC.ratio¶51
Bail bond executed, if any, stands cancelled.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL APPEAL (S.374(2) Cr.P.C.) — DISPOSAL ON COMPROMISE: Appeal by S. Anjinappa against judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2023 and order of sentence dated 22.12.2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in S.C.No.50/2021 for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. During final hearing, the parties settled the dispute amicably and filed an application under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.; the de facto complainant, a blood relative of the appellant, consented to closure of the proceedings and to collecting the fine of Rs.1,10,000/- deposited by the appellant on 18-01-2024. Considering the facts and circumstances and the nature of injuries sustained to the complainant, and to secure the ends of justice, the court recorded the compromise and disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise, setting aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, acquitting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 IPC, and cancelling the bail bond, if any. (S RACHAIAH, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:38504 CRL.A No. 2391 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2391 OF 2023 (C)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI ANJINAPPA

¶10

S/O GANGADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶11

OCC LABOURER

¶12

R/AT AREHALLI VILLAGE HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DIST 577527

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE BY SRIRAMPURA

¶18

POLICE STATION R/B ITS STATE PUBLIC

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:38504 CRL.A No. 2391 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU 560 001

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI.THYAGARAJ M., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 20.12.2023 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 22.12.2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN S.C.NO.50/2021.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:38504 CRL.A No. 2391 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

Heard Sri. Gopalakrishna Murthy C, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Pushpalath B, learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1 and Sri. Thyagaraj M, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶33

Both learned counsels submit that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and filed an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., read with section 482 of Cr.P.C., and the same is taken on record.

¶34

The appellant and the defacto complainant are present and they are identified by their respective counsels. The application is duly signed by the appellant, the defacto complainant and their respective counsels. The averments made in Paragraph Nos.1 to 4 of the affidavit read thus:

¶35

“1. It is submitted that both the Appellant and the De facto complainant have settled the dispute amicably outside the Hon'ble Court due to intervention of elders, friends and well-wishers and for betterment of their future life and also to maintain solidarity and good relationship between them, moreover the same is entered between

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38504 CRL.A No. 2391 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

them without any coercion, force, fraud but the same is with own volition.

¶39

2. It is further submitted that the Appellant and the De facto complainant known to each other since they are blood relatives and both of them have decided to withdraw the allegations against each other and they have decided to settle the above criminal case by putting an end to the litigation between them since the De facto complainant does not wish to continue the litigation.

¶40

3. It is further submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties De facto complainant has no objection to close the Proceedings in S.C.No.50/2021 for the offences punishable under Section 324, 326 of IPC, passed in the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga dated 20-122023. It is further submitted that the appellant has no objection to collect the fine amount fro a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- by the De Facto Complainant which is deposited on 18-01-2024 by the appellant in the trial court proceedings i.e., in S.C.No.50/2021 was pending on the file of the The Prl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38504 CRL.A No. 2391 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

4. It is further submitted that both of them without any influence or coercion and after careful reading of this Application have affixed their signature to close the above proceedings to meet the ends of justice.”

¶44

In terms of the averments stated above, the parties

¶45

have settled the matter amicably and sought to dispose of the matter. Their submission is placed on record.

¶46

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

¶47

and also the nature of injuries sustained to the complainant, it is appropriate to record the compromise, in order to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) The criminal appeal stands disposed of in terms of the compromise.

¶50

(ii) The judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2023 and order on sentence dated 22.12.2023 in S.C No.50/2021 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, is set aside.

¶51

(iii) The appellant is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC.

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38504 CRL.A No. 2391 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

(iv) Bail bond executed, if any, stands cancelled.

¶55

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶56

JS/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 40

Sri Anjinappa v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Anjinappa v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sudha Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Mjr Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mr. B. K. Padmanabha Reddy

Dr S B Vikram Vs Dr B K Suresh

Harish @ Handi Harish Vs the State of Karnataka by

Irene Omoibe Alias Iryan Vs Union of India

Sri.Yashwanth @ Micky Vs State of Karnataka by