Allowed

Sri. Panathale R. Naveena v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2026CRL.RP/1037/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition against conviction under Sections 509, 354 and 323 IPC. Parties settled amicably and sought leave to compound the compoundable offences. The High Court permitted compounding, set aside the convictions by the trial court and appellate court, acquitted the petitioner, cancelled bail bonds and ordered refund of fine.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; parties permitted to compound offences; convictions set aside; petitioner acquitted under Sections 509, 354, 323 IPC; bail bonds cancelled; fine to be refunded.

Sri. Panathale R. Naveena Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:4034 CRL.RP No. 1037 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1037 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI PANATHALE R. NAVEENA S/O LATE RAMAIAH WORKING AS CLERK AT TREASURY R/AT SINGATHUR VILLAGE CHETTIMANE POST BHAGAMANGALA MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT -571 201.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI JAIRAJ G, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BHAGAMANDALA POLICE MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 247 REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGLAURU - 560 001.

¶13

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV., FOR SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2013 IN C.C.NO.771/2012, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADIKERI, KODAGU AND JUDGMENT DATED 21.07.2018,IN CRL.A.NO.44/2013 BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU AT MADIKERI AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:4034 CRL.RP No. 1037 of 2018

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.771 of 2012 by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Madikeri, Kodagau dated 24.06.2013 and the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2013 by the Court of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri dated 21.07.2018.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

Petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court in C.C.No.771 of 2012 by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Madikeri, Kodagau for the offence punishable under Sections 509, 354 & 323 of IPC and the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2013 by Court of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri.

¶24

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4034 CRL.RP No. 1037 of 2018

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

petitioner and defacto complainant are present in person before

¶28

this Court. They jointly submit that parties have filed necessary application before this Court seeking permission of this Court to compound the offences for which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the Courts below. The parties, who are present before this Court are identified by their respective advocates and it is submitted that settlement arrived between the parties is voluntary without there being any undue influence and coercion. The application filed by the parties seeking permission of this Court to permit them to compound the offences for which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the Court below is taken on record.

¶29

Taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the parties and also since the offences for which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the Court below are compoundable in nature, I am of the opinion that the permission sought for by the parties in the application filed by them is required to be granted and the revision petition is required to be disposed of based on the settlement that has been arrived between the parties, who are relatives and living in the neighbourhood. It is submitted that parties intend to give

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:4034 CRL.RP No. 1037 of 2018

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

a quietus to the dispute inter se between them and live peacefully in the future.

¶34

Accordingly, the following:-

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The application filed by the parties seeking permission of this Court to permit them to compound the offences for which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the Courts below is allowed and the parties are permitted to compound the offences for which petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the Courts below.

¶37

The criminal revision petition is allowed and consequently, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 509, 323 and 354 of IPC. His bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. Fine amount, if any, deposited by him shall be refunded .

¶38

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶39

NMS

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Sri. Panathale R. Naveena v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Panathale R. Naveena v. 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

Mr. Sundaram Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Mohammed Zahoor Vs Smt Safiya Banu

C.Puttaveeregowda Vs the Chief Secretary

Roopesh Kumar G K Vs Smt Bhagya

Sri Shankar Vs Sri Joseph

Sri P Ramesh Babu Vs State of Karnataka