IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.824 of 2017 BETWEEN 1. T.R. RANGASWAMY, S/O. LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 2. SMT. MANGALAMMA, W/O. LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF THIMMALAPURA VILLAGE, KEBBANAHALLY HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK - 572 201.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI A.H. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. SHILAJA W/O RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLASANDRA VILLAGE, TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 572 101.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY TIPTUR RURAL POLICE, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.
.. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1.
SRI K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP FOR R-2.) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 18.07.2017 AND 20.07.2017 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR IN CRL.A.No.10029/2014 CONVICTING THE PETITIONERS FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 504, 506, 498(A) READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 22.03.2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., AT TIPTUR IN C.C.No.741/2008 ACQUITTING THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.1 AND 2 OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 504, 506, 498A READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 as well as respondent No.1 have filed a joint compromise application in I.A.No.1/2019 under Section 320(2)(6) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to compound the offence.
2. The Trial Court acquitted the petitioners, but the First Appellate Court convicted the petitioners and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The same is challenged before this Court by filing this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there were number of litigations between the parties, which were already compromised. Even respondent No.1 herein filed a private complaint for the offence under Sections 494, 114, 493, 420, 495 read with 149, which also came to be compromised and withdrawn by respondent No.1 herself. The disputes were amicably settled between the parties. Even divorce was also granted by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, C.N.Halli, in MC No.124/2015. Even these petitioners compromised the Original Suit filed by the respondent on behalf of their minor son. The petitioners were also given share in the properties. Therefore, there is no chance of both the parties living together as divorce has already been granted and permanent alimony was also granted to respondent No.1. Hence, he prayed for allowing the application seeking permission of the Court for compounding the offence.
4. Respondent No.1 is the wife and submitted that she also wants to close the case and do not want to pursue the matter.
5. Heard learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the orders passed in PCR No.566/2009 and CC No.335/2014, where respondent No.1 compounded the case for the offence under Section 494 of IPC and other offences. Likewise, divorce was also granted by the competent court on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties and permanent alimony was granted to respondent No.1 by the Court. Likewise, OS No.127/2016 has been compromised between the parties before the City Civil Judge, C.N.Halli, wherein, petitioner No.1 shared the property with the son named Gokulesh by giving a portion to the minor child.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances, since the parties have already compounded all the offences, divorce has already been granted and they are living separately even prior to the date of decree of divorce as also learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the order passed by this Court in Crl.RP. No.513/2006 dated 30.07.2009 whereby, in a similar case, this Court permitted the parties to compound the offence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Unnikrishnan @ Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala in Special Leave to Appeal (Cl.) No. CRLMP No.18630/2016 has allowed the parties to compound the offence under Section 394 of IPC. Another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhim Singh and others vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1974 SC 1744. in a similar situation, the Hon’ble Apex Court compounded the case in view of settling the matter between the parties amicably and has granted permission to compound the offence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in AIR 2011 SC 1821, the Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the parties to compound the offence.
7. On perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties have already compounded the dispute between themselves and the petitioner has already given permanent alimony and a share in the property to the son. Therefore, considering the special facts and circumstances of the case, without allowing the parties to further litigate in the matter and to mould the relief and to do substantial justice, it is deemed fit and proper to accord permission to them to compound the offence. Accordingly, I pass the following order;
Order The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
The parties are allowed to compound the offence. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, in Crl.A.No.10029/2014 dated 18.07.2017 is hereby set aside. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Fine amount deposited, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners.
SD/- JUDGE mv