IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1029/2019 Between:
1. Haleshappa S/o Doddajara Hanumathappa Aged about 40 years 2. Hanumanthappa S/o Doddajara Ningappa Aged about 65 years 3. Ramesh S/o Doddajara Hanumanthappa Aged about 30 years 4. Swamylinga S/o Doddajara Basappa Aged about 32 years 5. Swamylinga S/o Doddajara Chowdappa Aged about 38 years All R/at Gedlahatti Village Chennagiri Taluk-577213 Davanagere District. ...Petitioners (By Sri Umesh Moolimani, Adv. For Sri S.U.Prakash, Adv.) And:
State of Karnataka Santebennur Police Station Chennagiri Circle Davanagere District Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560001. ... Respondent (By Sri M.Diwakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the orders on 03.07.2019 in Crl.A.No.59/2018 on the file of the Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere and Judgment and conviction passed in C.C.No.147/2016 dated 17.04.2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Channagiri and to acquit the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.147/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Channagiri and etc., This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Haleshappa s/o Doddajara Hanumanthappa, Hanumanthappa s/o Doddajara Ningappa, Ramesh s/o Doddajara Hanumanthappa, Swamylinga s/o Doddajara Basappa and Swamylinga s/o Doddajara Chowdappa accused Nos.1 to 5 are present before this Court. Smt. M.R.Rudramma injured PW.6 is also present. Padmavathi is also present.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused is also present.
3. Learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor is also present.
4. Today they have filed an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for having compounded the offence. It is stated in the said application, at the intervention of elders and well-wishers the matter has been compromised between the injured and the accused persons as they are related with each other. In order to stop the further ill-will and litigation the matter has been compromised.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners-accused have been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 504, 323, 324, 354, 341, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, Sections 147, 504, 323, 341, 506 of IPC are compoundable but Sections 324 and 354 of IPC are non compoundable. In the present case both the accused and the injured are related with each other and the said compounding of the offence is not having any impact on the society.
6. It is his further submission that if the compromise is not allowed the relationship between the family is going to be disturbed and that it is going to affect the entire family and their relationship. On these grounds he prays to allow the application and compound the offence.
7. Per contra, the learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioners-accused have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 and 354 of IPC. The said offences are not compoundable and even they have been deleted under Section 320 of IPC and even the said offences are considered to be serious and are also having impact on the society. On these grounds he prayed that the said case is not suitable for compounding.
8. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
9. The only question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 354 of IPC can be compounded. In order to meet the ends of justice and to secure the justice to the parties, the Court is having a wide power to exercise its discretion to compound the offence.
10. In this behalf I want to rely upon the decision in the case of Narinder Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab & Another reported in 2014(6) SCC 466 and another decision in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai vs The State Of Gujarat reported in 2017(9) SCC 641. I also want to rely upon one more decision in the case of Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another reported in 2012(10) SCC 303. On going through the above said decisions it indicate that the Court before exercising its discretionary power it must have regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact. If the offence is a serious offence and if it is having impact on the society, then under such circumstances the Court cannot use its discretion and quash or compound the offence. But if it is not, then under such circumstances, it can exercise its power and compound the offence. When a dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled though the offence is not compoundable, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and piece is restored in the society and securing the ends of justice being an ultimate guiding factor, which has to be kept in mind while deciding the case and compounding it. For the purpose of brevity I quote para No.61 and 58 of the judgment in Gian Singh (quoted supra) which reads as under:
58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well- being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.
61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
11. Keeping in view the above said paragraph and submission of both the parties since they have compounded and the said compromise is not having any impact on the society as a whole and keeping in view the ratios laid down in the above decision, I am of the considered opinion that if the application is allowed and the matter is permitted to be compounded, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
12. In that light, I.A.No.2/2019 is allowed and compounding is permitted and in terms of the compromise the judgment of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Channagiri in C.C.No.147/2016 dated 17.04.2018 subsequently confirmed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Davanagere in Criminal Appeal No.59/2018 dated 03.07.2019 are set aside and the petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges leveled against them in terms of the compromise.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Both the parties have also been permitted to compound the offence in crime No.118/2015 pending on the file of JMFC, Channagiri Court.
ssb Sd/-
JUDGE