Supreme Court of India
H N Pandakumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 January, 2025
Author: Vikram Nath
Bench: Vikram Nath
2025 INSC 37 NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2667 OF 2024
IN
SLP(CRL.) NO. 895 OF 2024
H. N. PANDAKUMAR ...APPLICANT(S)/PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The present Miscellaneous Application1 seeking direction for
compounding of offence has been filed by the
applicant/petitioner in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.
895/2024, which was dismissed by this Court vide order
dated 19.01.2024, thereby upholding the conviction of the
applicant/ petitioner under Section 326 of the Indian Penal
Code, 18602. The applicant/petitioner, H.N. Pandakumar
(Accused No. 3 in the original case), seeks relief for
compounding the offense based on a compromise reached
between the parties after the dismissal of the Special Leave
Petition.
2. The original complaint was lodged by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
respondent/complainant, Puttaraju, in FIR No. 198/2008 at
Date: 2025.01.07
19:10:46 IST
Reason:
1
In short “M.A.”
2
IPCM.A. NO.2667 OF 2024 IN SLP(CRL.) NO. 895 OF 2024 1
K.R. Pete Rural Police Station, Mandya, alleging that Accused
Nos. 1 to 5 had formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted
the complainant and his family members, causing grievous
injuries. Following an investigation, charges were framed
against all the accused under Sections 143, 341, 504, 323,
324, and 307 read with Section 149 the Indian Penal Code,
18603. The Trial Court, vide its judgment dated 24.01.2012
in Sessions Case No. 68/2009, convicted Accused Nos. 3 and
4 under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing
them to rigorous imprisonment for two years imposing a fine
of Rs. 2,000/- each. The remaining accused were acquitted.
3. The petitioner’s/applicant’s appeal before the High Court of
Karnataka, Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal No. 218/2012,
resulted in partial modification of the Trial Court’s judgment.
Vide its judgment dated 01.09.2023, the High Court reduced
the petitioner’s/applicant’s sentence to one year while
enhancing the fine amount to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two
lakhs only). Accused No. 4 was acquitted. Aggrieved, the
petitioner/applicant approached this Court through the
aforementioned Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed
on 19.01.2024.
4. Subsequently, the applicant/petitioner has filed the present
Miscellaneous Application seeking relief for compounding the
offense under Section 326 IPC, based on a compromise
reached between the parties after the dismissal of the Special
Leave Petition. The applicant/petitioner states that all the
disputes between the applicant/petitioner’s family and the
3
IPC
M.A. NO.2667 OF 2024 IN SLP(CRL.) NO. 895 OF 2024 2
complainant’s family have been amicably resolved with the
intervention of elders and villagers. The applicant/ petitioner
has agreed to pay Rs. 5,80,000/- as total compensation to
the complainant as part of the settlement. The complainant
has filed an Interlocutory Application No. 227010/2024 for
impleadment in support of the petitioner’s prayer for
compounding the offense, affirming the compromise and
seeking closure of the matter to ensure peace and harmony
between the parties. The complainant and the petitioner
reside in close proximity, with only a road separating their
houses, making it essential to maintain a peaceful
relationship between the two families. The parties are also
distantly related, and any lingering hostility is likely to
disturb the social fabric of their neighbourhood. The
compromise covers not only the criminal case but also related
property disputes, including the right of way, which had been
a point of contention for years. The applicant/petitioner’s
commitment to paying the agreed compensation reflects a
genuine effort to end the discord and uphold the terms of the
settlement. This Court notes that the complainant’s
unequivocal support for the compromise further underscores
the voluntary nature of the settlement and the shared desire
to put an end to all disputes.
5. In light of the amicable settlement and the complainant’s
unequivocal consent, as evidenced by the Interlocutory
Application, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the
present M.A. While the offense under Section 326 IPC is non-
compoundable under the provisions of the Criminal
M.A. NO.2667 OF 2024 IN SLP(CRL.) NO. 895 OF 2024 3
Procedure Code, 1973, the exceptional circumstances of this
case, including the voluntary settlement between the parties,
warrant the exercise of this Court’s inherent powers to give
effect to the compromise.
6. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application is allowed. The
order dated 19.01.2024 dismissing the SLP in limine is
recalled.
7. Leave granted.
8. For the facts and reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly
allowed. The conviction recorded by the court’s below is
confirmed, however, the sentence of one year RI is reduced to
the period already undergone.
9. The I.A. for impleadment stands disposed of in terms of this
order.
10. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
……………………………….J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
………………………………..J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 07, 2025
M.A. NO.2667 OF 2024 IN SLP(CRL.) NO. 895 OF 2024 4