Kanikala ThimmappA. S/O Dasappa, and ors. Vs. State of KarnatakA. by Spp by the Town Police, ChitradurgA. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[mr.justice v.jagannathan, j.] this crl.p filed u/s.482 cr.p.c praying to quash the impuged order dated' 15.11.2010 passed by the prl. civil judge (jr.dn.) and jmfc, chitradurga in c.c.no.878/2008 and thereby rejecting the compromise petition filed under sec. 320 of crl.p.c. in respect of an offence p/u/s 120-b r/w sec. 149 of ipc afier allowing the application for the main offence p/u/s 420 of the ipc.1. this petition is disposed of finally after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and learned government pleader for the state who took notice for the respondent.2. the short point for consideration is the court below having permitted the parties to compound the offence and having allowed the application filed u/s 320(2) of cr.p.c. and having dismissed the application filed u/s 320(8) of cr.p.c. could not have directed trial of the offence u/s 120-b of cr.p.c.3. submission of the petitioners counsel is that, though the application for compounding was filed following compromise entered into between the rival parties and the parties sought for closure of the case filed for the offences punishable under sections 420, 120-b r/w 149 of ipc. the trial court having permitted the parties to compound the offence by allowing the applications, could not have ordered continuation of the trial u/s 120-b of the ipc and in this connection learned counsel referred to the apex court decision reported in 2008 air scw 2287 to submit that, courts should ordinarily accept terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings and there should be common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.4. having thus heard the petitioners counsel and having taken note of the decision cited wherein the apex court quashed the proceedings u/s 482 of cr.p.c despite the offence u/s 406 was found to be not compoundable as the amount involved was more than rs.250/-, having regard to the observation made in para.5 of the aforesaid decision, in the instant case also, no purpose would be served in directing the parties to go on with the trial when they have compromised the case between themselves and wanted to put an end to the litigation.5. for the above reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order directing the trial to go in respect of section 120-b of ipc is also set aside.

Judgment:
1. This petition is disposed of finally after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for the State who took notice for the respondent.

2. The short point for consideration is the court below having permitted the parties to compound the offence and having allowed the application filed U/S 320(2) of Cr.P.C. and having dismissed the application filed U/S 320(8) of Cr.P.C. could not have directed trial of the offence U/S 120-B of Cr.P.C.

3. Submission of the petitioners counsel is that, though the application for compounding was filed following compromise entered into between the rival parties and the parties sought for closure of the case filed for the offences punishable under sections 420, 120-B r/w 149 of IPC. the trial court having permitted the parties to compound the offence by allowing the applications, could not have ordered continuation of the trial U/S 120-B of the IPC and in this connection learned counsel referred to the Apex Court decision reported in 2008 AIR SCW 2287 to submit that, courts should ordinarily accept terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings and there should be common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.

4. Having thus heard the petitioners counsel and having taken note of the decision cited wherein the Apex Court quashed the proceedings U/S 482 of Cr.P.C despite the offence U/S 406 was found to be not compoundable as the amount involved was more than Rs.250/-, having regard to the observation made in para.5 of the aforesaid decision, in the instant case also, no purpose would be served in directing the parties to go on with the trial when they have compromised the case between themselves and wanted to put an end to the litigation.

5. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order directing the trial to go in respect of section 120-B of IPC is also set aside.