Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1694 (KAR)

Yesaiah @ Yesu v. State Of Karnataka

2020-09-03

M.G.UMA

body2020
JUDGMENT M.G.Uma, J. - The appellant-accused is before this Court aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2011 passed in S.C.No.88/2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I at Ballari (for short referred to as 'the trial Court' ) convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 325, 504, 506 and 307 ofi.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine with default sentences. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Neelendra D.Gunde, for the appellant and the learned AGA Sri Vinayak Kulkarni, for the respondent/State. Learned counsel Sri Vi jay S.Chiniwar is also heard, who represents the injured complainant-Sri. Anj ineyya. 3. Learned counsel representing the appellant and the complainant submitted that the dispute between the complainant and the accused has been compromised. Accused is the son-in-law of the complainant and they are now leading peacefullife and settled down in the village. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant filed the application-I.A.No.1/2020 under Section 320 r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compound the offences punishable under Sections 324, 325, 504, 506 and 307 ofi.P.C. and to acquit the accused after quashing the proceedings in the interest of justice. The application is accompanied by the affidavit filed by the accused stating that the dispute between the complainant and himselfis amicably settled at the intervention of elders and no differences exist between the two. The application is also accompanied by the affidavit sworn to by the injured complainant Sri Anj ineyya, who also reiterated the fact that the dispute between him and the accused is already settled at the intervention of the elders and they are living peacefully and seeking to allow the application by compounding the offences. 5. Per contra learned AGA opposed the application stating that the offences under Section 324 and 307 ofi.P.C. are not compoundable. 6. The order sheet dated 01.09.2020 disclosed that the injured complainant-Anjineyya and the accused-Yesaiah were present before this Court. On enquiry, both these persons stated before the Court that the dispute is amicably settled and they are living peacefullife. The complainant-Anj ineyya is represented by Sri Vijay S.Chiniwar, who has also filed vakalath on his behalf. 7. 6. The order sheet dated 01.09.2020 disclosed that the injured complainant-Anjineyya and the accused-Yesaiah were present before this Court. On enquiry, both these persons stated before the Court that the dispute is amicably settled and they are living peacefullife. The complainant-Anj ineyya is represented by Sri Vijay S.Chiniwar, who has also filed vakalath on his behalf. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Yogendra Yadav and others V/s State of Jharkhand and another,2014 5 SCC(Cri) 267 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court relying on its earlier decision in Gian Singh V/s State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , held as under: "Sections 482 and 320 quashing of non-compoundable of fences in view of the compromise between the par ties. High Cour t can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 even though of fence alleged is non-compoundable if parties have amicably settled their dispute and victim has no objection. Further, this would depend on facts of each case. Of fences which involve moral turpitude, grave of fences like rape, murder cannot be ef faced by quashing proceedings because they have harmful ef fect on society and are not restricted to two individuals or groups. Quashing of such of fences may send a wrong signal to society. However, where High Court is convinced that of fences are entirely personalin nature not af fecting public peace and tranquility and quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would secure ends of justice, it may quash the same. In such cases, prosecution becomes lame and pursuing such lame prosecution becomes waste of time and energy and also likely to unsettle compromise and obstruct restoration of peace. On facts, in the cr iminal appeal before the Supreme Cour t, though of fences under Sections 326 and 307 IPC are uncompoundable, but considering compromise petition filed by parties, and fact that they were neighbours and living peacefully, pending proceedings directed to be quashed." (Emphasis supplied) 8. The learned counsel also relied on the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.257/2011, wherein this Court relying on the decision in B.S.Joshi and others V/s State of Haryana and another, (2003) CriLJ 2028 , allowed the compromise petition and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and also by the Appellate Court, thus, acquitting the accused. The learned counsel also relied on the order dated 18.04.2016 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.3696/2010, whereunder considering all the above decisions, the parties were permitted to compound the offences and the accused were acquitted even though the offences alleged were punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 307 read with Section 34 ofi.P.C. 9. I have gone through the above decisions in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case and also submissions made by the learned counsels. 10. The appellant/accused in the present case is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 325, 504, 506 and 307 ofi.P.C. the offences under Section 325, 504 and 506 are compoundable as per Section 320 of Cr.P.C., but offences under Section 324 and 307 ofi.P.C. are not compoundable. However, applying the dictum laid down in the above decisions, the parties may be permitted to compound the offences in this appealitself, as otherwise the parties will be driven to another round of litigation by filing separate petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings. 11. As could be made out from the records and also as submitted by both the complainant and the accused, they are close relatives, leading peacefullife in the same locality. Under such circumstances, proceeding to consider the matter on merits, without permitting the parties to compound, may give rise to the disturbance of peace in both the family. Moreover, the offences alleged against the accused is that he had assaulted the complainant with a chopper and voluntarily caused grievous hurt, while attempting to take his life away. Therefore, the dispute between the parties was purely personalin nature and it has not affected the public peace or tranquility. Under such circumstances, permitting the parties to compound the offence and acquitting the accused will meet the ends of justice. 12. In view of the above, I do not find any legalimpediment to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and to permit the parties to compound the offences and also to acquit the accused in the interest of justice. 13. In view of the discussions held above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A.No.1/2020 filed by the accused along with the complainant, under Section 320 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. 13. In view of the discussions held above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A.No.1/2020 filed by the accused along with the complainant, under Section 320 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2011 passed in S.C.No.88/2011 by the Fast Track Court-I at Ballari is set aside. The appellant and the complainant are permitted to compound the offences referred to above. The accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 325, 504, 506 and 307 ofi.P.C. However, the fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant/ accused before the trial Court is ordered to be confiscated to the State as expenses of the litigation.