- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3510 CRL.A No. 100387 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100387 OF 2023 (C) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MADARALI KAGINELE S/O. ABDUL KHADAR JILANI, AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE. 2. SMT. DILSHAB BEGUM W/O. ABDULKHANDAR, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD. 3. SRI. ABDULKHADAR JILANI S/O. MADARSAB AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., ALL ARE R/O. HOSANAGAR, 3RD CROSS, HAVERI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HAVERI WOMEN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001. 2. SMT. AFREEN KHAN D/O. G. AKBAR KHAN AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NEAR PATIL KIRANI SOTRE, KARALAHALLI VILLAGE, SARATHI POST. TQ. HARIHAR, DIST. DAVANAGERE-577001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SHAIKH FAKRUDDIN SAB, ADV. FOR R2) Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.25 18:00:13 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3510 CRL.A No. 100387 of 2023 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 374(2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 17.08.2023 PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 86/2021 BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, THEREBY CONVICTING THE APPELLANT NO. 1 TO 3 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A), 307 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1964 AND APPELLANT NO.1 IS ALSO CONVICTED FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 323 OF IPC AND SENTENCING APPELLANTS NO. 1 TO 3 TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS. 2000/- IN DEFAULT TO SUFFER SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT 2 MONTH FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A) OF IPC AND FURTHER SENTENCING APPELLANTS TO UNDERGO TO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 1 YEARS AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.1000/- IN DEFAULT TO SUFFER SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 MONTH FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 323, OF IPC AND FURTHER SENTENCING APPELLANTS TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR 10 YEARS AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.5000/- IN DEFAULT TO SUFFER SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 2 MONTHS FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 307, OF IPC AND SENTENCING APPELLANTS TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 YEARS AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.2000/- IN DEFAULT TO SUFFER SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 MONTH FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 506, OF IPC, SENTENCING APPELLANTS TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.1000/- IN DEFAULT TO SUFFER SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 MONTHS FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 3 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT., AND SENTENCING APPELLANTS TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.1000/- IN DEFAULT TO SUFFER SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 MONTH FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3510 CRL.A No. 100387 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellants, who have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accused No.1 convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years, are before this Court. 2. The prosecution alleges that the de facto complainant is the wife of Accused No.1, and Accused Nos.2 and 3 are her parents-in-law. It is alleged that they subjected the de facto complainant to both mental and physical cruelty, assaulted her, threatened her with dire consequences, and also attempted to murder her. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and passed the impugned judgment of conviction. 3. Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the de facto complainant are present before the Court and have filed an application for compounding, stating that they have amicably resolved their dispute. As per the settlement, Accused No.1 and the de facto complainant have agreed to dissolve their marriage mutually in the pending suit. As permanent alimony, Accused No.1 has agreed to pay a sum of ₹4,60,000/-, out of which ₹4,00,000/- has been paid to the de facto complainant today, which she has acknowledged. The balance amount of ₹60,000/- will be paid in the pending suit. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3510 CRL.A No. 100387 of 2023 The de facto complainant has agreed to withdraw all allegations against the appellants and has no objection to setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction. The application is placed on record. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ramagopal and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, has ruled that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or offences predominantly of a private nature can be annulled, regardless of whether the trial has concluded or an appeal against conviction has been dismissed. The Court held that delivering justice is not solely about handing out punishment. The application of laws must always allow for lawful exceptions, and in cases where a compromise is reached post-conviction, the High Court should exercise its discretion judiciously. The Court must consider the circumstances surrounding the incident, the manner in which the compromise has been arrived at, and the nature and seriousness of the offence, as well as the conduct of the accused before and after the incident. 5. In the present case, the appellants have been convicted for the aforesaid offences, which are predominantly private in nature and neither heinous nor crimes against society. 6. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case, I find it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction by allowing this appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3510 CRL.A No. 100387 of 2023 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.08.2023, passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, in SC No.86/2021, is hereby set aside. 8. The appellants are acquitted of the aforesaid offences. The bail bonds, if any, of the appellants are discharged. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 94