- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15515 CRL.P No. 6422 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6422 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. NADEERA NAIR, W/O SIDDHARTH NAYAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT PT-62/19, 2nd FLOOR, PT BLOCK, NEAR POST OFFICE, KALKAJI EXTENSION, KALKAJI SOUTH DELHI, DELHI – 110 019. 2. PRAKASAM ANAND, S/O PRAKASAM, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT 21/36, SIVANANDHA NAGAR, KOLATHUR, TIRUVALLUR, TAMIL NADU – 600 099. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAHESH S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KADUGODI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15515 CRL.P No. 6422 of 2022 STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 567 001. 2. SANTOSH BHASME, S/O PARASHURAM BHASME, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O NOG 008, SAHITHI ELEGANCE APARTMENT ANANTH NAGAR, ELECTRONIC CITY, 14th CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS.ASMA KOUSER, ADDL.S.P.P., FOR R1; SRI.DAYANANDA K.G., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.20606/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 341, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15515 CRL.P No. 6422 of 2022 ORAL ORDER FIR registered in Crime No.155/2021 at Kadugodi Police Station on a complaint lodged by respondent No.2 herein, culminated in filing of charge sheet. 2. FIR was registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 for offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 504, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. However, the charge sheet is filed against the petitioners arraigning them as accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively. 3. An application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. is filed, signed by the petitioners as well as respondent No.2/defacto complainant. It is stated that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes pursuant to intervention of well-wishers and as such, respondent No.2 has consented not to prosecute the petitioners and has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 4. Petitioners as well as respondent No.2/defacto complainant are present before the Court and they are identified by their respective learned counsels. Respondent No.2/defacto complainant submitted that he has voluntarily - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15515 CRL.P No. 6422 of 2022 come forward to compromise the matter and has no objection for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. 5. Petitioners as well as respondent No.2 have filed their respective affidavits reporting/acknowledging settlement. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, has held at paragraph Nos.8 and 24 as under: "8. We find that there are cases where the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in those offences which are uncompoundable has been recognised. The only difference is that under Section 320(1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has discretionary power to refuse to compound the offence. However, compounding under Section 320(1) of the Code is permissible only in minor offences or in non-serious offences. Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in respect of the offences enumerated in Section 320(2) of the Code, compounding is permissible but it requires the approval of the Court. Insofar as serious offences are concerned, quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise is within the discretionary powers of the High Court. In such cases, the power is exercised under Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are quashed. Contours of these powers were described by this Court - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15515 CRL.P No. 6422 of 2022 in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana [B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848] which has been followed and further explained/elaborated in so many cases thereafter, which are taken note of in the discussion that follows hereinafter. 24. The two rival parties have amicably settled the disputes between themselves and buried the hatchet. Not only this, they say that since they are neighbours, they want to live like good neighbours and that was the reason for restoring friendly ties. In such a scenario, should the court give its imprimatur to such a settlement? The answer depends on various incidental aspects which need serious discourse. The legislators have categorically recognised that those offences which are covered by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code are concededly those which not only do not fall within the category of heinous crimes but also which are personal between the parties. Therefore, this provision recognises where there is a compromise between the parties, the court is to act at the said compromise and quash the proceedings. However, even in respect of such offences not covered within the four corners of Section 320 of the Code, the High Court is given power under Section 482 of the Code to accept the compromise between the parties and quash the proceedings. The guiding factor is as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, both the ultimate consequences may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. This is so recognised in various judgments taken note of above. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15515 CRL.P No. 6422 of 2022 7. The dispute between the parties is purely private in nature, which arose on account of a petty quarrel. The dispute has been settled. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the settlement and the affidavits filed by the parties, it is just and necessary to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners initiated by respondent No.2, to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, following: ORDER (i) Petition is allowed; (ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.20606/2021 pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru is quashed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE SMJ