Sri. Govinda Prabhu Vs the State-through the Sub Inspector of Police — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri. Govinda Prabhu Vs the State-through the Sub Inspector of Police — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition allowed on the basis of the accepted settlement/compounding: both impugned judgments set aside (JMFC Bantwal C.C.No.987/2012 dated 30.10.2015 and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru Crl.A.No.249/2015 dated 17.06.2017); accused acquitted of all charges; bail bonds cancelled; amount in deposit to be released in favour of the petitioners; CWs 1 and 2 arrayed as respondents 2 and 3; petitioners to carry out amendment in the cause title.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the petitioners under Ss.448, 504, 323, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC should be set aside and the proceedings terminated pursuant to the settlement between the petitioners and the victims (CWs 1 and 2) and their joint application to compound the offence. +1 more

Court's answer

After going through the contents of the compounding application, the Court found no impediment to accepting the terms of settlement and putting an end to the proceeding, and accordingly accepted the application.

Ratio / Principle

Both impugned judgments — the Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru's judgment dated 17.06.2017 in Appeal No.249/2015 and the JMFC, Bantwal's judgment dated 30.10.2015 in C.C.No.987/2012 — are set aside.

Key takeaways

The accused (petitioners) are acquitted of all charges.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Anant Ramanath Hegde J., 21.08.2025), CRL.RP No. 769 of 2017 under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. Four accused, convicted by JMFC Bantwal (C.C.No.987/2012, judgment 30.10.2015) and partly acquitted in first appeal by the Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru (Crl.A.No.249/2015, judgment 17.06.2017 — acquitted under Ss.354 and 507 IPC, convicted under Ss.448, 504, 323, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC), filed this revision. The petitioners and the victims (CWs 1 and 2, arrayed as respondents 2 and 3) reported a settlement and filed an application to compound the offence, supported by affidavits of both sides; the parties were identified through video conference, and the discrepancy in CW2's name (Padmavathi in the affidavit versus Pushpavathi w/o Jagadeesha Poojary in the Aadhar card) was explained as referring to the same person. Holding that there was no impediment to accepting the terms of settlement, the Court accepted the application, set aside both impugned judgments, acquitted the accused of all charges, cancelled the bail bonds, and directed that the amount in deposit be released to the petitioners, with amendment of the cause title.

NC: 2025:KHC:32700 CRL.RP No. 769 of 2017

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 769 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

SRI GOVINDA PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O. LATE. VISHWANATH PRABHU R/AT KELAGINA PETE,BANTWAL, KASABA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK - 574 219.

SRI CHARAN JUMADIGUDDE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O RAVINDRA SANIL, R/AT JUMADIGUDDE, BANTWAL MOODA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK - 574219.

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

SRI. KESHAVA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O. LATE. CHANDAPPA NAIKA, R/AT DYAPALA HOUSE, BANTWAL MOODA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK - 574219.

SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O.MONAPPA MOOLYA, R/AT JAKRIBETTU, THIMMAPPA SHETTY, COMPOUND HOUSE, B. MOODA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK - 574219

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI P P HEGDE, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32700 CRL.RP No. 769 of 2017

HC-KAR

AND:

THE STATE-THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE RURAL POLICE STATION, BANTWAL RURAL POLICE STATION, D.K. DISTRICT, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560001.

SRI JAGADISH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE NARAYANA POOJARY,

SMT PADMAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O JAGADISH, R/AT RAMANAGARA HOUE, BANTWAL. (AMENDED ON 21.08.2025)

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI KUSHAL V, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO 1) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 30.10.2015 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BANTWAL IN C.C.NO.987/2012 IN SO FAR IT PERTAINS TO THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 448,504,323,427 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC IS CONCERNED; 2) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.06.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., D.K., MANGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.249/2015 IN SO FAR IT PERTAINS TO THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 448,504,323,427 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC IS CONCERNED AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS OF ALL THE CHARGES.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32700 CRL.RP No. 769 of 2017

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent/State. Vakalath filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 - Jagadish and Padmavathi are taken on record.

This petition is against the judgment dated 30.10.2015 in C.C.No.987/2012 on the file of JMFC, Bantwal and also the judgment dated 17.06.2017 in Crl.A. No.249/2015 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru.

Accused who are convicted for offence under Sections 448, 504, 323, 354, 427, 506, 507 of IPC filed an appeal and appeal was allowed-in-part. Accused were acquitted of charges for offences under Sections 354 and 507 and were convicted for offences under Sections 448, 504, 323, 427, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners and CWs 1 and 2 the victims have entered into settlement and have filed an application to compound the offence.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32700 CRL.RP No. 769 of 2017

HC-KAR

Application is supported by the affidavit filed by the

victims and also the affidavit filed by the petitioners/accused.

Petitioners have appeared through video conference so also the victims of CWs 1 and 2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and CWs 1 and 2 identify the parties appearing through video conference.

Learned HCGP would submit that Aadhar card produced by CW 2 would reveal that person named in the Aadhar card is Pushpavathi w/o Jagadeesha Poojary however, in the affidavit she is named as Padmavathi.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for CWs 1 and 2 would submit that in her evidence CW2 has stated her name as Padmavathi but she has signed as Pushpavathi. It is submitted that both names referred to the same person.

Learned counsel for CW2 submits that person appearing in video conference is Padmavathi @ Pushpavathi.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32700 CRL.RP No. 769 of 2017

HC-KAR

After going through the contents of the application

filed, this Court does not find any impediment to accept the terms of settlement and put an end to the proceeding.

Accordingly, application is accepted.

The impugned judgments dated 17.06.2017 passed

by the Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in Civil Appeal No.249/2015 and the judgment dated 30.10.2015 passed by the JMFC, Bantwal in C.C.No.987/2012 are setaside.

Accused are acquitted of charges.

Bail Bonds stand cancelled.

The amount in deposit shall be released in favour of

the petitioners.

Since CWs 1 and 2 before the Trial Court have

approached this Court reporting settlement, CWs 1 and 2 viz., are arrayed as respondents 2 and 3.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32700 CRL.RP No. 769 of 2017

HC-KAR

Petitioners shall carry out amendment in the cause

title.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

BRN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 37