- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31074 CRL.P No. 11810 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11810 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MR RASWAN AGED 22 YEARS S/O MR ABDUL RAZAK NO.2-117B NEAR STAND SAJIPPANADU BANTWAL DAKSHINA KANNADA -574231. …PETITIONER (BY SRI/SMT. TALHA ISMAIL BENGRE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PUTTUR TOWN POLICE STATION MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. 2. SMT APSA D/O POKARI BIYARI SUTHIKALLUR HOUSE, KEEDILA GRAMA, PERA MOGARU POST, BANTWALA TALUKA-574222 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31074 CRL.P No. 11810 of 2022 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN CR.NO.62/2017 IN C.C.NO.37/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 417,376 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM COURT, PUTTUR, D.K., DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner, respondent No.2 and their respective counsel as well as learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State are present. 2. Respondent No.2/complainant, who is the prosecutrix is present through video conference. On enquiry she submits that she has married the petitioner/accused and they are having three children and she has no objections to allow the petition and quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31074 CRL.P No. 11810 of 2022 3. On 15.07.2025, an affidavit of respondent No.2 is filed reiterating the above facts. The Affidavit of respondent No.2 reads as under: "1. I Smt.Apsa W/o Raswan, aged about 26 years, #2-117B near stand, Sajipanadu Bantwal, Dakshinakannada-574231 do hereby state under oath as follows:- 2. That, I am the respondent No.2 and the De-facto complainant in the above case and I am well conversant with the facts and circumstance of the case. Hence, I am swearing to this affidavit. 3. I have filed FIR bearing crime No.62/2017 which is got numbered as CC.No.37/2021 for the offences punishable under Section 417 and 376 of IPC, which is pending before Hon'ble Prl.Senior Civil Judge and ACJM Court. 4. I say that now I got married to the petitioner and got two childrens out said wedlock and we both are leading very happy married life. When such being the case pendency of this case may create unnecessary issues for me and my family. 5. I state that if the stay is not granted the trial court may proceed with this case which may cause irreparable loss and injury to me and my family and I will be put to great hardship. 6. Wherefore I respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be please to petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of above case in the interest of justice." - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31074 CRL.P No. 11810 of 2022 4. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of in the case of Narindra Singh V/s. State of Punjab1 (Narindra Singh’s case) wherein at paragraph 31, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings, especially in non- compoundable heinous offence. 5. In Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab and another2, (Gian Singh’s Case) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the scope of the power of trial Court in excising the discretion under Section 320 of Cr.P.C and that of the High court excising inherited powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. In Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of 1 2014 AIR SCW 2065 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31074 CRL.P No. 11810 of 2022 Jharkhand and another3, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., even though the offence alleged is non-compoundable, if parties have amicably settled their disputes and victim has no objection. However, this would depend on the facts of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder cannot be effaced by quashing proceedings because they have harmful effect on Society and are not restricted to individuals or groups. Quashing of such offence may send a wrong signal to the Society. However, if the High Court is convinced that the offences are individual or personal in nature and not affecting the public peace or tranquility and quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would secure ends of justice, it may quash the same. In such case, the prosecution becomes lame and pursuing such lame prosecution may become waste of time and energy 3 (2014) 9 SCC 653 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31074 CRL.P No. 11810 of 2022 and also unsettled compromise and obstruct restoration of peace. 6. In the light of the above decisions, it would be necessary to examine whether this is a fit case to accept the compromise between the parties. Perusal of the complaint averments and the resultant charge sheet indicate that earlier prosecutrix was married. Since her husband was harassing and ill treating her, she took divorce from him. Thereafter she fell in love with petitioner since 4 1/2 years, prior to the filing of the complaint. Alleging that under a promise of marriage petitioner developed physical relationship with her and later refused to marry her, she filed complaint. He has also pledged gold belonging to her and availed loan. When the prosecutrix filed complaint, she was aged 26 years. It was a love affair which went wrong. 7. Now, the parties have compromised. They are married and having children together. Respondent No.2 has filed Affidavit in support of the compromise. Having - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31074 CRL.P No. 11810 of 2022 regard to the above facts and circumstances, it could be safely held that permitting the parties to compromise would not affect the society. Continuation of dispute between the parties even after they have compromised would become lame and pursuing such a lame prosecution may become waste of time and energy and also unsettle the compromise and obstruct the restoration of peace. Having regard to these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court. In order to do real, complete and substantial justice between the parties, it would be appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings by exercising the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31074 CRL.P No. 11810 of 2022 (ii) The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.37/2021 on the file of Prl.Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Puttur, D.K.District, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376 of IPC (arising out of Cr.No.62/2017 of Puttur Town PS), is hereby quashed. (ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e-mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE BH/RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47