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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Acquittal of the petitioner/accused; setting aside of the judgments dated 01.03.2017 in Crl.A.No.208/2015 and 07.09.2015 in C.C.No.82/2011; cancellation of bail bond; fine amount appropriated by the State.

Issue for consideration

Whether, the original complainant having died and the accused having entered into a settlement with the complainant's brother (P.W.7), the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC can be compounded and the concurrent convictions set aside with acquittal of the petitioner/accused.

Court's answer

After going through the records, a case is made out to permit the parties to put an end to the dispute.

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned judgments dated 01.03.2017 in Crl.A.No.208/2015 (District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru) and 07.09.2015 in C.C.No.82/2011 (Civil Judge & JMFC, T.Narasipura) are set aside.

Key takeaways

The petitioner/accused is acquitted of charges.ratio¶54
Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.ratio¶55
The fine amount shall be appropriated by the State as submitted by the petitioner/accused.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition (S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.P.C.) — conviction under S.326 IPC by the Civil Judge & JMFC, T.Narasipura (C.C.No.82/2011, judgment dt. 07.09.2015: two years simple imprisonment and Rs.6,000/- fine) affirmed in appeal (Crl.A.No.208/2015, judgment dt. 01.03.2017) — original complainant K.S.Sathisha died in 2021, unmarried; his brother Jagadeesha (P.W.7) — amicable settlement between the accused and P.W.7; affidavits recording intention to compound the offence for a peaceful and dignified closure — application under S.320 r/w S.482 Cr.P.C. — relying on the Apex Court decisions in Duvvu Raja Shekar @ Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (SLP (CRL) No.8512/2015) and H.N.Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka (Misc. Appl. No.2667/2024 in SLP (CRL) No.895/2024), whose propositions the HCGP did not dispute — revision allowed; both judgments set aside; petitioner/accused acquitted; bail bond cancelled; fine of Rs.6,000/- appropriated by the State. (Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.; 20.08.2025)

NC: 2025:KHC:32460 CRL.RP No. 449 of 2017

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 449 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

SRI. PRAKASHA S/O PUTTAKEMPE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDENT OF KEMPEGOWDANAKOPPALU VILLAGE, BANNUR HOBLI T.NARASIPURA TALUK-571 124 MYSURU

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. H.S. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

STATE OF KARNATAKA BANNUR POLICE MYSURU DISTRICT-570 001 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.03.2017 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.208/2015 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.09.2015 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., T.NARASIPURA IN C.C.NO.82/2011 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32460 CRL.RP No. 449 of 2017

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed assailing the concurrent finding in respect of the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal code.

The petitioner/accused is convicted for the aforementioned offence and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.6,000/- is also imposed on the petitioner/accused and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.

The appeal filed by the petitioner/accused is also

dismissed confirming the order of conviction of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant- K.S.Sathisha who lodged a complaint in the year 2010, died in the year 2021. It is further submitted that he was a bachelor and his brother Jagadeesha was examined is examined as P.W.7 before the Trial Court.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32460 CRL.RP No. 449 of 2017

HC-KAR

It is his further submission that the petitioner and

P.W.7 the brother of the complainant have entered into settlement.

He would further submit that there is no dispute between the parties and he would also refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Duvvu Raja Shekar @ Raju vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh¹ to contend that the criminal case can be settled in case original complainant is not alive and the settlement is arrived at between the legal representatives of original complainant and the accused.

To support his contention that the criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC can also be settled. Under these circumstances, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in H.N.Pandakumar

vs. The State of Karnataka² .

1 SLP (CRL) NO.8512/2015

2 Misc. Appl. No.2667/2024 in SLP (CRL) No.895/2024

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32460 CRL.RP No. 449 of 2017

HC-KAR

The petitioner has also filed an application under

Section 320 read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

The parties have entered into an amicable settlement. An affidavit is also filed by the petitioner/accused and also P.W.7, the brother of the complainant. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the parties have entered into settlement and they intend to compound the offence with an intention to give a peaceful and dignified closure to the proceedings.

This Court has considered the aforementioned two judgments and the application filed under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the affidavit filed by the parties.

Learned High Court Government Pleader has no objection as he has not disputed the propositions of the law laid down in the aforementioned two judgments.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32460 CRL.RP No. 449 of 2017

HC-KAR

After going through the records, this Court is of

the view that a case is made out to permit the parties to put an end to the dispute.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed .

(ii) The impugned judgment dated 01.03.2017 in Crl. Appeal No.208/2015 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru and the judgment dated 07.09.2015 in C.C.No.82/2011 on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, T.Narasipura are set-aside.

(iii) The petitioner / accused is acquitted of charges.

(iv) Bail bond if any, stands cancelled.

(v) The fine amount shall be appropriated by the State as submitted by the petitioner/accused.

Sd/-

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

GVP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 35