IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2302 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
STATE BY PARASHURAMPURA POLICE ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP) AND 1. JAYANNA S/O. GADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. VADERAHALLY VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522.
2. PEDDANNA S/O. GADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. VADERAHALLY VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK-577522.
3. JAGADEESH @ JAGANNATHA S/O. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O. VADERAHALLY VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK-577522.
4. GADRAPPA S/O. CHANDRANNA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O. VADERAHALLY VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK-577522.
5. YASHODAMMA W/O. PEDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. VADERAHALLY VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK-577522.
6. RATHNAMMA W/O. JAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. VADERAHALLY VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK-577522. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: MANJUNATH K, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO:
A)SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 4.3.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. C.J. (JR. DN.) AND J.M.F.C., CHALLAKERE IN C.C.NO.172/2009 ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS U/S 320(1) AND (2) OF CR.P.C.
B)SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 3.10.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA IN CRL.R.P.NO.35/2013 DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER - STATE OF KARNATAKA AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. C.J. (JR. DN.) AND J.M.F.C., CHALLAKERE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The records disclose that Parashurampura police registered a case against the respondents herein (accused Nos.1 to 6) in Crime No.86/2008 and laid a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354, 323, 326, 506 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. The same was numbered as C.C.No.172/2009. After examination of prosecution witnesses, at the stage of arguments, accused Nos.1 to 6 as well as the complainant filed applications under Sections 320(1) and 320(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking leave of the Court to compound the offences. The applications were opposed by the Public Prosecutor. However, by order dated 4.3.2013, the learned Magistrate allowed the applications and discharged the accused of the offences for which they were charge sheeted. The State challenged the said order before the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga in Crl.R.P.No.35/2013 and by order dated 03.10.2013 the revision petition has been dismissed.
2. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner-State, at the outset, submitted that among other offences, the accused were charge sheeted for the offences under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code. The said offence was non-compoundable even with the permission of the Court. Under the said circumstance, trial Court had assumed jurisdiction which was not vested in it, resultantly, the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
3. I have perused the copies of applications filed before the trial Court under Sections 320(1) and 320(2) of Cr.P.C.
4. The application filed under Section 320(1) of Cr.P.C. does not contain signature of the complainant/ victim, whereas the application filed under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. bears the LTM of the complainant/victim and in the said application respondents/accused Nos.1 to 6 have sought leave of the Court to compound the offences under Sections 324, 504, 306 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Even though, charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354, 323, 326, 506 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, there was no prayer by the respondents’ seeking leave of the Court to compound the offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code. Under the said circumstance, the learned Magistrate ought not to have discharged the petitioners of the charges under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code. Be that as it may, the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code is a non-compoundable offence.
When the statute does not invest jurisdiction in the Court to compound the said offence, the learned Magistrate could not have assumed jurisdiction and permitted the petitioners to compound the said offence.
5. The learned Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court have referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 681 in the case of Mahesh Chand and another Vs. State of Rajasthan as well as the order passed by this Court in the case of Madarsab and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2011(1) KCCR 708. The said orders have been passed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in exercise of inherent powers vested with the Apex Court and High Court. The subordinate Courts are not vested with the powers to compound the offence which are statutorily non- compoundable. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] has held thus:
“Section 320 of the Code articulates public policy with regard to the compounding of offences. It catalogues the offences punishable under IPC which may be compounded by the parties without permission of the Court and the composition of certain offences with the permission of the Court. The offences punishable under the special statutes are not covered by Section 320. When an offence is compoundable under Section 320, abetment of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence or where the accused is liable under Section 34 or 149 of IPC can also be compounded in the same manner. A person who is under 18 years of age or is an idiot or a lunatic is not competent to contract compounding of offence but the same can be done on his behalf with the permission of the Court. If a person is otherwise competent to compound an offence is dead, his legal representatives may also compound the offence with the permission of the Court. Where the accused has been committed for trial or he has been convicted and the appeal is pending, composition can only be done with the leave of the Court to which he has been committed or with the leave of the appeal Court, as the case may be. The Revisional Court is also competent to allow any person to compound any offence who is competent to compound. The consequence of the composition of an offence is acquittal of the accused. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 mandates that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. Obviously, in view thereof the composition of an offence has to be in accord with Section 320 and in no other manner.”
6. In view of the above, impugned order cannot be sustained. Consequently, petition is allowed. The orders dated 3.10.2013 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga and the order dated 4.3.2013 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Challakere are hereby quashed. The trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
bkp Sd/- JUDGE