- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41552 CRL.P No. 14240 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14240 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHANDAN S.J. S/O JAYARAMA G., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 2. SMT. LALITHAMMA H.R. W/O JAYARAMA G., AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.549/619, BHARATHNAGAR, BEL LAYOUT 2ND PHASE, BHARATH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 091. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BHADRAVADI SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BYADARAHALLI P S BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O DENNIS JOHN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41552 CRL.P No. 14240 of 2025 R/AT VENKATESWARA LAYOUT, HEROHALLI AND RAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. ROOPA B.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO ACCEPT THE ABOVE PETITION AND QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.1021/2024 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.591/2024 OF BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENECES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 115(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352 AND 74 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 (BNS) AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, AT BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER The criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.591/2024 of Byadarahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, now pending in Spl.C.No.1021/2024 on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural at Bengaluru is sought to be quashed in this petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41552 CRL.P No. 14240 of 2025 2. Respondent No.2 has set the law into motion, on the basis of which the above mentioned crime was registered against the petitioners. The Police have filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 74, 3(5) of BNS, 2023, Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance 2014 and Section 3(2)(v-a) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. It is alleged that on 11.09.2024 at about 11.30 a.m., when the complainant and other poura Karmikas were doing cleaning work near 14th Cross Road, Bharath Nagar, Bengaluru, the petitioners herein picked up a quarrel with them, abused them in filthy language referring to their caste, assaulted them etc. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners and respondent No.2 that at the intervention of elders and well-wishers, the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and respondent No.2/defacto - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41552 CRL.P No. 14240 of 2025 complainant has undertaken to cooperate for the termination of the proceedings now pending before the trial Court. 5. The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that in respect of the very same incident a counter case has been registered against respondent No.2 and others, on a complaint lodged by petitioner No.2. He submitted that ‘B’ report was filed by the Police and the same has been challenged before the learned Magistrate. He submits that the petitioners will undertake not to precipitate the said ‘B’ report any further. The said submission is placed on record. 6. A joint memo is filed under Section 528 r/w 321 of BNSS, 2023. Para 1 to 3 of the joint memo are extracted here under: “1. The Petitioners are facing the trial in Spl.C. No.1021/2024 arising out of Crime No.591/2024 of Byadarahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under 115(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352, and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41552 CRL.P No. 14240 of 2025 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which is pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, at Bengaluru. 2. In view of the compromise between the accused persons and the Victim. Accordingly, both parties have arrived at a settlement and decided to compound this criminal case as they did not intent to peruse the same. 3. The petitioners humbly submit that, this Hon'ble court pleased to be read the averments made in the main petition as part & parcel of this application to avoid repetition.” 7. Petitioners as well as complainant/CW.1 and CWs.4 to 7 are present before the Court. They have filed separate affidavits and the same are placed on record. 8. It is submitted that they have resolved the dispute among themselves and not interested in prosecuting the matter any further. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41552 CRL.P No. 14240 of 2025 9. It is relevant to extract Para 9 and 10 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635. “9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the opinion that two questions fall for our consideration in the present appeal. First, whether the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of a "non-compoundable" offence? If yes, then whether the power to quash proceedings can be extended to offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act? 10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem to outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in Ramgopal v. State of M.P. (2022) 14 SCC 531 : 2021 SCC Online SC 834, wherein, a two-Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (N.V. Ramana, CJI g & Surya Kant, J.) was confronted with an identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified that the jurisdiction of a court under Section 320 CrPC cannot be construed as a proscription against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41552 CRL.P No. 14240 of 2025 Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC. It was further held that the touchstone for exercising the extraordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482 CrPC, would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent powers.” 10. In Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Apex Court at para Nos.8 and 24 has held 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41552 CRL.P No. 14240 of 2025 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 in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, 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 recognized that those offences which - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41552 CRL.P No. 14240 of 2025 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 recognizes 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 recognized in various judgments taken note of above." 11. As could be seen from the material on record, the incident occurred on a particular day when respondent No.2 and others were cleaning the road in front of the house of petitioners. This Court do not find any previous animosity between the parties. There was no motive for the petitioners to commit any offence. The incident occurred in the heat of the moment and not premeditated. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41552 CRL.P No. 14240 of 2025 Having regard to the fact that the victims have willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, this Court is of the considered view that, to meet the ends of justice, criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners should be quashed, as no purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings and it will be a futile exercise. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Application is allowed. Consequently, petition is allowed. The entire proceedings pending against the petitioners in Spl.C.No.1021/2024 on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural at Bengaluru are quashed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84