-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

CRL.R.P.NO.2044 OF 2013

BETWEEN

KARABASAYYA

S/O SANGAYYA BASRIHALLIMATH,

AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PHOTOGRAPHER,

R/O: CHIKKERUR, TQ: HIREKERUR,

DIST: HAVERI.

...PETITIONER

(BY SMT. SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI, ADV.,

FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR CHAKALABBI, ADV.,)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

R/BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. RAMESH B CHIGARI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT-STATE,

SRI. N. D. GUNDE, ADV., FOR COMPLAINANT)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397

R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER

PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT, RANEBENNUR IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.41/2010 DATED 13.12.2012 AND THE

JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED

AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.142/2007

DATED 02.07.2010 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND I JMFC,

HIREKERUR AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND ACQUIT

THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED.

-2-

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This revision is filed against the judgment of

conviction passed by both the Courts below for the offence

punishable under section 326 of IPC, whereby the Trial

Court has imposed the sentence of imprisonment for a

period of three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default

clause of S.I. for a period of one month.

2.

As per the case of the prosecution, on

18.02.2007 night at 8.00 p.m., in front of bus stand in

Chikkerur village, when the complainant demanded the

amount due to him from the accused, the accused-revision

petitioner abused him in filthy language and picked a club

lying nearby and assaulted on his right forehand causing

grievous injury to him and he also threatened him. In this

regard, he was charge sheeted and on the basis of the

evidence, he was convicted for the offence punishable

under section 326 of IPC but was acquitted for the offences

-3-

punishable under sections 504 and 506 of IPC by the Trial

Court.

3.

This judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur

came to be challenged in Criminal Appeal No.41/2010

before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned

Sessions Judge by his order dated 13.12.2012 dismissed

the appeal by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court.

4.

These concurrent findings of conviction are

challenged in this revision.

5.

Subsequently, both the parties have submitted

a compromise petition under section 320 r/w section 482

of Cr.P.C. reporting settlement and the learned counsel

Sri.

Neelendra

D

Gunde

filed

power

for

the

complainant/respondent No.2. Both complainant and the

accused were present before the Court on 24.09.2021 and

when Court enquired them, they submit that they have got

settled the dispute amicably. They have also filed affidavits

in support of compromise petition. It is submitted that

-4-

since both are of the same village, in order to maintain

cordial relationship, they got the matter settled.

6.

Admittedly, the offence under Section 326 of

IPC is not compoundable offence. Further, the revision

petitioner-accused has already suffered conviction before

both the Courts below. As such, a doubt arises regarding

jurisdiction of this Court to entertain such a petition in

criminal revision. In this context, learned counsel for

revision

petitioner-accused

has

placed

reliance

on

unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal

No.3696/2010 dated 18.04.2016, wherein in similar

circumstances, considering the relationship, this Court has

allowed such a petition by accepting the joint memo and

acquitted the revision petitioner-accused by setting aside

the impugned orders of conviction.

7.

The learned counsel for revision petitioner has

also placed reliance on the decision of the Hob’ble Apex

Court in the case of