This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') has been filed

by the accused challenging the judgment and order of

conviction and sentence passed by the Court of JMFC-II,

Davanagere (for short the 'Trial Court) in C.C.No.2997/2007

Digitally

signed by B

A KRISHNA

KUMAR

Location:

High Court

of Karnataka

- 2 -

dated 06.01.2011 and the judgment and order passed by the II

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Davanagere (for short the

'Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.8/2011 dated 13.09.2013.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State.

3.

Facts leading to filling of this revision petition briefly

narrated are, on the complaint of PW1 Nagaratna a case was

registered against the petitioner and three others for the

offences punishable under section 498(A) & 506 read with

Section 149 IPC. In the said case, charge sheet was filed by the

police against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Since the

accused persons had claimed to be tried before the trial court,

the prosecution to prove its case had examined 12 witness as

PW.1 to PW.12 and also got marked 5 documents as Ex.P1 to

P5.

The

accused

who

had

denied

the

incriminating

circumstances available against them on record during the

course of their section 313 of Cr.P.C, statement, however did

not choose to lead any defence evidence. The trial court by its

judgment and order dated 6.01.2011 had convicted the

petitioner- accused no.1 for the offence punishable under

section 498(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple

- 3 -

imprisonment for a period of 6 months and pay fine of

Rs.1,500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for

period of 1 month. The said judgment and order of conviction

and sentence passed by the trial court was confirmed by the

court

of

II

Additional

District

Judge,

Davanagere

in

Crl.A.No.8/2011 on 13.09.2013. It is under these factual

background the petitioner-accused no.1 is before this court.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner does not seriously challenge the judgment and order

of conviction passed against him by the Courts below. He

submits that during the pendency of this revision petition, at

the intervention of well wishers and elders the dispute has been

amicably settled. He submits that the marriage of the petitioner

with PW1 - Nagaratna has been already dissolved by the

jurisdictional Family Court in MC No.21/2008 by a decree of

divorce on 08.01.2010sss and the same has attained finality.

He submits that the dispute between the parties is amicably

settled and in view of the settlement between the parties, the

petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the

complainant - Nagaratna and the she has agreed to receive the

same. He submits that the parties have therefore filed an

- 4 -

application under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to

permit them to compound the offence for which the petitioner

has been convicted and sentenced by the Courts below.

5.

PW1 - Nagaratna who is kept present before the

Court by the learned High Court Government Pleader admits to

the settlement arrived between the parties and she also states

that she has received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the

petitioner. The learned High court government pleader submits

that having regard to the settlement between the parties

appropriate orders may be passed taking into consideration the

judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GYAN

SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB - (2012) 10 SCC 303 and also in

the case of HASI MOHAN BARMAN AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF

ASSAM AND ANOTHER - (2008) 1 SCC 184.

6.

I

have

carefully

considered

the

arguments

addressed on both the sides and also perused the material

available on record.

7.

In the case of Gyan Singh (supra) the Hon'ble

Supreme Court after reiterating its earlier judgment has held

that even though the offence punishable under section 498(A)

is non compound