- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9163 CRL.P No.2746/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2746/2025 BETWEEN: MR. NOORULLA @ NOORULLA KHAN @ NOOR S/O RASHID KHAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT. NO.30, VEERAMMA LAYOUT CHINNAIAH PALYA, OPP. MASIDI ROAD MICO FACTORY, ADUGODI BANGALORE - 560 030. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. TEJAS N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR POLICE BANGALORE - 560 027. (REP. BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HCK, BANGALORE - 01). 2. MR. SALMAN SHARIFF S/O SUBAN SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT. NO.17, B STREET SLATER HOUSE ROAD SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. 3. MR. SUBHAN SHARIFF S/O ABDUL REHAMAN AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.17, B STREET Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9163 CRL.P No.2746/2025 SHIVAJINAGAR, SLATER HOUSE ROAD BANGALORE560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. MASTAKEEM ALAM, ADV., FOR R2 & R3) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.1217/2018 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE LX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-61) WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.1/2016 OF SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR P.S. BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(b), 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 307, 427, 504, 506(B) R/W 149 OF IPC AND UNDER SEC.2 OF PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF PROPERTY ACT 1981, AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. 2. Sri Mastakeem Alam, learned counsel, undertakes to file a power of attorney on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 3. The petitioner, who has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 307, 427, 504, 506B read with Section 149 of the IPC, and Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction & Loss of Property Act, 1981, have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9163 CRL.P No.2746/2025 "Wherefore, the petitioner - accused No.5 above named most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.1217/2018 on the file of Hon'ble LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bangalore (CCH-61) which is arising out of Crime No.1/2016 of Sampangirama Nagar Police Station, Bangalore for offences under sections 120(b), 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 307, 427, 504, 506(B) read with 149 of IPC and under section 2 of Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act 1981, as an abuse of process of law and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice." 4. The prosecution alleges that on 31.12.2015, while the complainant’s father was traveling home in a car with his driver, the accused, forming an unlawful assembly, allegedly abused, assaulted, and attempted to take his life, further threatening him with dire consequences. 5. The parties are present before this Court and have filed an application for compounding of offences, stating that they have amicably resolved their dispute. As per the terms of the settlement, the de facto complainant has agreed to withdraw all allegations and has no objection to quashing the impugned proceedings. 6. The application is placed on record. 7. The learned HCGP for respondent No.1 (State) submits that Section 307 of the IPC prescribes punishment up to life imprisonment, and therefore, the said offence cannot be compounded. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9163 CRL.P No.2746/2025 8. The wound certificate produced along with the charge sheet indicates that the injuries sustained by the complainant’s father were simple in nature. He sustained a sutured wound measuring 4 cm over the center of the head, allegedly caused by an iron rod. However, the wound certificate does not specify the assailants’ names, marking them as unknown. Subsequently, in a further statement, the petitioner was named as accused, but no specific overt act has been attributed to the accused, apart from general and omnibus allegations. 9. The offence under Section 307 of the IPC is predominantly private in nature. Since the injured party has no objection to quashing the proceedings, it would be futile to subject the petitioner to trial, as the probability of conviction appears remote and the case has a weak evidentiary link due to the settlement. Under such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings in S.C. No.1217/2018 on the file of the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH- 61), are hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25