Karnataka High CourtYallamma And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 September, 2022Author:P.N.DesaiBench:P.N.Desai1\n\n\n\n\n              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA\n                     KALABURAGI BENCH\n\n         DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022\n\n                          BEFORE\n\n             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI\n\n              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200170/2018\nBETWEEN:\n\n1.     YALLAMMA,\n       W/O LATE DEVAPPA\n       AGE:33 YEARS,\n       OCC:HOUSEHOLD,\n2.     AMARAPPA S/O SHANKRAPPA NANDIHAL\n       AGE:43 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,\n\n3.     RAMAPPA S/O AMARAPPA KAREKURI\n       AGE:33 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,\n\n4.     RAMAPPA @ RAMESH\n       S/O SIDDAPPA VANDALI\n       AGE:29 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,\n\n5.     SHIVAKAPPA S/O AMACHIPPA\n       AGE:30 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,\n\n6.     MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATH\n       S/O SIDDAPPA @ MAHADEVAPPA VANDALI\n       AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,\n\n       ALL R/O CHIKKAKADUBURU,\n       SINDHANUR TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT\n\n(BY SHRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE.)\n\n\nAND:\n\n1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA\n       R/BY SPL. PP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,\n       KALABURAGI BENCH\n       (THROUGH BALAGANUR P.S, DIST.RAICHUR)\n                              2\n\n\n\n\n2.   SHANKARAMMA\n     W/O.BASAVARAJ\n     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,\n     OCC:HOUSEHOLD,\n     R/O. CHIKKAKADABARA VILLAGE\n     TQ:SINDHNOOR\n     DIST:RAICHUR.\n                                             ...RESPONDENTS\n(BY SRI. GURURAJ V.HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R1;\n    SRI. SANTOSH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)\n\n     THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C BY THE\nADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT /ACCUSED PRAYING THAT THIS\nHON_BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: SET ASIDE THE ORDER\nOF CONVICTION DATED.10.12.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.\nDIST & SESSIONS JUDGE AT:RAICHUR IN SPL.CASE\nNo.39/2013 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED FOR THE\nOFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 354, 354-A (I)(II), 504 AND 506\nR/W SEC. 149 OFIPCAND SECTION 3(1)(X)(XI) OF SC/ST ACT.\n\n     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE\nCOURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:\n\n\n                        JUDGMENTThis appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction\n\nand order of sentence dated 10.12.2018 passed by the I\n\nAddl. Dist and Sessions Judge, Raichur in Special Case\n\nNo.39/2013.2.    The compromise petition is signed by appellant\n\nNos.1 to 6 and respondent No.2 and their respective counsel.\n\nIt is stated by learned counsel for the appellants that the\n\nappellants and respondent No.2 are neighbors and they know\n\neach other from several years. The husband of PW.1 i.e.,3PW.2 is acting as a head of the paddy cutting laborers and\n\nthere are dispute regarding payment of wages with accused\n\nNo.1. In this regard, when accused No.1 went to the house of\n\nPW.1 and asked her for payment of wages, the alleged\n\nincident took place and there were quarrel between them.\n\nThey     prayed    to   allow   the   appeal.   Now     they   have\n\ncompromised the matter. There is no force, threat or undue\n\ninfluence on them to compromise the case. Hence, prayed to\n\npermit    them    to compromise       the   case and    quash the\n\nproceedings. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for\n\nthe appellants relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme\n\nCourt in the case of Ramagopal and ors. Vs. State of\n\nMadhya       Pradesh       passed     in    Crl.A.No.1489       and\n\n1488/2012         dated   29.09.2021,       wherein    the   Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court has considered the power of High Court\n\nunderSection 482of Cr.P.C to take into account the\n\ncompromise in non-compoundable offences and held at\n\nparagraph Nos.18 and 19 as under:"18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that\n    the plenary jurisdiction of this Court to Impart\n    complete justice UnderArticle 142cannot ipso\n    facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory4provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the\nabsence of an express provision akin toSection 482Code of Criminal Procedure conferring powers on\nthe Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside\ncriminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable\nUnderArticle 142of the Constitution embraces this\nCourt with scopious powers to quash criminal\nproceedings also, so as to secure complete justice.\nIn doing so, due regard must be given to the\noverarching objective of sentencing in the criminal\njustice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime\nphilosophy       of   maintenance        of   peace     of   the\ncollective and that the rationale of placing an\nindividual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.19. We thus sum-up and hold that as\nopposed toSection 320Code of Criminal Procedure\nwhere   the      Court    is   squarely       guided    by   the\ncompromise between the parties in respect of\noffences     'compoundable'         within     the     statutory\nframework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon\na High Court UnderSection 482Code of Criminal\nProcedure or vested in this Court UnderArticle 142of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the\nmetes and bounds ofSection 320Code of Criminal\nProcedure Nonetheless, we reiterate that such\npowers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised\ncarefully   in    the    context    of   quashing       criminal\nproceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect5of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii)\n    Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary\n    nature of compromise between the Accused and\n    the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the Accused persons,\n    prior to and after the occurrence of the purported\n    offence and/or other relevant considerations."3.    The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision\n\nhas referred to its another decision of three judge bench in\n\nthe case ofGian Singh V. State of Punjabreported in\n\n(2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court\n\ndealt with the power of High Court in exercise of its inherent\n\npowers underSection 482of Cr.P.C could quash non-\n\ncompoundable offences, based on a compromise/settlement\n\narrived at between the Accused and the victim-complainant.\n\nand at paragraph No.9 it is held as under:"9. Before scrutinizing the facts of these cases and\n  rephrasing the scope of powers exercisable by a High\n  Court UnderSection 482Code of Criminal Procedure, it\n  would be apropos to illuminate the following principleslaid down bya 3-Judge Bench of this Court inGian\n  Singh(Supra) case:61.... the power of the High Court in\n     quashing    a   criminal   proceeding   or   FIR   or6complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction\nis distinct and different from the power given to\na criminal court for compounding the offences\nUnderSection 320of the Code. Inherent power\nis of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation\nbut it has to be exercised in accord with the\nguideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to\nsecure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent\nabuse of the process of any court. In what cases\npower to quash the criminal proceeding or\ncomplaint or FIR may be exercised where the\noffender and      the victim have   settled their\ndispute   would    depend    on   the   facts   and\ncircumstances of each case and no category can\nbe prescribed. However, before exercise of such\npower, the High Court must have due regard to\nthe nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and\nserious offences of mental depravity or offences\nlike murder, rape, dacoity, etc.        cannot be\nfittingly quashed even though the victim or\nvictim's family and the offender have settled the\ndispute. Such offences are not private in nature\nand have a serious impact on society. Similarly,\nany compromise between the victim and the\noffender in relation to the offences under special\nstatutes like thePrevention of Corruption Actor\nthe offences committed by public servants while\nworking in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for7any basis for quashing criminal proceedings\ninvolving such offences. But the criminal cases\nhaving overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil\nflavour stand on a different footing for the\npurposes of quashing, particularly the offences\narising from commercial, financial, mercantile,\ncivil, partnership or such like transactions or the\noffences arising out of matrimony relating to\ndowry, etc. or the family disputes where the\nwrong is basically private or personal in nature\nand    the parties    have       resolved their entire\ndispute. In this category of cases, the High\nCourt may quash the criminal proceedings if in\nits view, because of the compromise between\nthe offender and the victim, the possibility of\nconviction is remote and bleak and continuation\nof the criminal case would put the Accused to\ngreat oppression and prejudice and extreme\ninjustice   would    be    caused     to   him    by   not\nquashing the criminal case despite full and\ncomplete settlement and compromise with the\nvictim. In other words, the High Court must\nconsider whether it would be unfair or contrary\nto the interest of justice to continue with the\ncriminal    proceeding     or    continuation     of   the\ncriminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse\nof    process   of   law   despite     settlement      and\ncompromise      between         the   victim     and   the8wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of\n     justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is\n     put to an end and if the answer to the above\n     question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court\n     shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the\n     criminal proceeding."4.      The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of\n\nRamgopal and Ors referred supra has relied on its another\n\ndecision of three judge bench in the case ofState of\n\nMadhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors.reported in\n\n(2019) 5 SCC 688 and at paragraph No.10 it is observed as\n\nunder:10.      The   compendium      of   these   broad\n    fundamentals structured in more than one judicial\n    precedent, has been recapitulated by another 3-Judge Bench this Court inState of Madhya Pradesh\n    V. Laxmi Narayan and Ors. MANU/SC/0320/2019:(2019) SCC 688, p.15 elaborating:(1) That power conferred Under Section 482 the\n         Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the\n         non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of\n         the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly\n         and predominantly the civil character, particularly\n         those arising out of commercial transactions or\n         arising out of matrimonial relationship or family9disputes and when the parties have resolved the\n  entire dispute amongst themselves;(2) Such power is not be exercised in those\n  prosecutions which, involved heinous and serious\n  offences of mental depravity or offences like\n  murder, rape, dacoity, etc., Such offences are not\n  private in nature and have a serious impact on\n  society;(3) Similarly, such power is not to be exercised\n  for the offences under the special statutes like thePrevention of Corruption Actor the offences\n  committed    by   public       servants    while   in   that\n  capacity are not to be quashed merely on the\n  basis of compromise between the victim and the\n  offender;(4)   xxx xxx xxx\n\n(5)   While    exercising          the      power     UnderSection 482 of the Code to quash the criminal\nproceedings in respect of non-compoundable\noffences, which are private in nature and do\nnot have a serious impact on society, on the\nground that there is a settlement/compromise\nbetween the victim and the offender,, the High\nis required to consider the antecedents of the\nAccused; the conduct of the Accused, namely,\nwhether the Accused was absconding and why\nhe was absconding, how he had managed with10the complainant to enter into a compromise,\n       etc.                           (Emphasis Applied)"5.     Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the\n\ncase    ofRamawatar      Vs. State of     Madhya       Pradeshreported in AIR 2021 SC 5228 referring to its earlier\n\ndecision in the case ofRamgopal and Anr. Vs. The State\n\nof Madhya Pradeshpassed in Crl.A.No.1489/2012 dated\n\n29.09.2021 , wherein the three judges bench at paragraph\n\nNos.12, 15 and 16 held as under:"12.In view of the settled proposition of law, we\n         affirm the decision of       this Court inRamgopal(Supra) and re-iterate that the powers of this\n         Court underArticle 142can be invoked to quash a\n         criminal proceeding on the basis of a voluntary\n         compromise between the complainant/victim and\n         the Accused.15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising\n         out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the\n         Court   will   be   extremely    circumspect    in    its\n         approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically\n         enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and\n         harassment against members of Scheduled Castes\n         and     Scheduled    Tribes.The    Actis     also    a\n         recognition of the depressing reality that despite11undertaking several measures, the Scheduled\nCastes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected\nto various atrocities at the hands of upper-castes.\nThe Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the\nAct has been enacted keeping in view the express\nconstitutional safeguards enumerated inArticles\n15, 17and21of the Constitution, with a twin-fold\nobjective of protecting the members of these\nvulnerable communities as well as to provide\nrelief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-\nbased atrocities.16. On the other hand, where it appears to the\nCourt that the offence in question, although\ncovered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private\nor civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has\nnot been committed on account of the caste of\nthe victim, or where the continuation of the legal\nproceedings would be an abuse of the process of\nlaw, the Court can exercise its powers to quash\nthe   proceedings.    On    similar   lines,   when\nconsidering a prayer for quashing on the basis of\na compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied\nthat the underlying objective of the Act would not\nbe contravened or diminished even if the felony in\nquestion goes unpunished, the mere fact that the\noffence is covered under a 'special statute' would\nnot refrain this Court or the High Court, from\nexercising their respective powers underArticle12142of the Constitution orSection 482Code of\n       Criminal Procedure."6.    It is also observed in the above referred decision\n\nthat even in the cases which arise out of SC/ST Act, the\n\nproceedings would be quashed considering the nature of\n\noffence and terms of compromise, whether the complainant\n\nor the victim who is SC/ST who belongs to weaker sections,\n\nthey are more prone to acts of coercion and force, therefore,\n\nif the Courts find even a hint of compulsion for force, no relief\n\ncan be given to the Accused party. What factors the Court\n\nshould consider, would depend on the facts and circumstance\n\nof each case.7.    Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied\n\nupon the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the\n\ncase of Syed Diwan & Anr. Vs. State Rep. By The Deputy\n\nSuperintendent       of    Police    and     Ors.     Passed    in\n\nCrl.A.Nos.294/2022        (Arising   out      of     SLP     (Crl.)\n\nNo.10037/2021)     dated:28.02.2022,       wherein   the   Hon'ble\n\nApex Court considered that the offences underSections\n\n3(1)(iii)of SC/ST Act, and permitted to compounding of\n\noffence and relied on its earlier decision in the case of13Ramawatar V. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal\n\nAppeal No.1393/2011 dated 25.10.2021).8.    In view of the principles stated in the above\n\nreferred decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in my view,\n\ncontinuation   of   the   entire    proceedings   against   the\n\nappellants/accused is abuse of process of Court and against\n\nthe principles stated in the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme\n\nCourt in the above referred decisions.9.    I have perused the complaint and compromise\n\npetition.10.   It is evident that the victim/complainant along\n\nwith her husband who are PWs.1 and 2 are present before\n\nthe Court. It appears that the dispute is with regard to\n\npayment of wages, wherein PW.2 was the head of those\n\ncoolies who go to work for Paddy Cutting. It appears, with\n\nregard to payment of wages there was some quarrel with\n\nPWs.1 and 2 with accused. Bet that as it may.11.   At this stage, instead of going to the merits of the\n\ncase, in view of the compromise entered into between the14both the parties, I am of the considered view that the\n\ncriminal proceedings needs is to be quashed as both the\n\nparties belongs to same village and they do not want to\n\ncontinue the case.12.    All the parties are present before the Court. The\n\ncontents of compromise petition is read over to them and\n\nthey admit that the compromise is free, voluntary one and\n\nthere is no force, coercion or undue influence by anybody and\n\nthey have signed the compromise petition and also the order\n\nsheet voluntarily. Therefore, by exercising the powers vested\n\nin this Court underSection 482of Cr.P.C., the criminal\n\nproceedings against the appellants/accused deserves to be\n\nquashed.Hence, I pass the following:ORDER(i)    The appeal is disposed of in terms of the\n\n            compromise entered into between the parties.(ii)   Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order\n\n            of   sentence   dated   10.12.2018   passed    in\n\n            Spl.Case.No.39/2013 by the I Additional District15and Sessions Judge, at Raichur, convicting the\n\n             appellants/accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences\n\n             under Sections 143, 147, 354, 354-A (I)(II), 504\n\n             and 506 r/wSection 149of IPC andSections\n\n             3(1)(X)(XI)of SC/ST Act are hereby is set aside.Accordingly, the criminal proceedings initiated\n\n             against the appellants by the complainant are\n\n             hereby quashed.(iii)      Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 6 are acquitted of\n\n                the   offences     and   charges   alleged    against\n\n                them.(iv)    Their bail bonds if any, stands cancelled. The fine\n\n             amount      if      any,     deposited      by      theappellants/accused Nos.1 to 6 shall be refunded\n\n             to them by the trial Court after proper verification\n\n             and identification.Sd/-JUDGE\n\nHJ