- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7851 CRL.P No. 102212 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102212 OF 2025 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: IRFAN S/O. MALIKSAB TAHASHILDAR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/AT. GADDAYYA NAGAR, LAXMESHWAR, DIST. GADAG-582116. …PETITIONER (BY SHRI ZANZA JOSHI, ADV. FOR SHRI GOURISHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, LAKSHMESHWAR POLICE STATION, GADAG, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD. 2. MALLAVVA URF MALA W/O. GURAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT. H .NO.137, SIDDARUD NAGAR, HEGGERI, OLD HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; SHRI HIRANKUMAR J. PATEL, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER AS IN LAKSHMESHWAR POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.00115/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 352, 351(2) OF BNS, 2023, UNDER SECTION 67 OF IT ACT, 2000 AND UNDER SECTION 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST ACT, 1989 (AMENDMENT) ACT 2015, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT GADAG IN SPL.C.NO.247/2024, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7851 CRL.P No. 102212 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) The petitioner and respondent No.2 are personally present before the Court. 2. Sri Zanza Joshi, for Sri Gourishankar H. Mot learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hirankumar Patel learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State are present. 3. The joint memo under Section 359 (6) & (8) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed, which is duly signed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 and their respective counsel. The contents of the joint memo read as under: “JOINT APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 359 (6) & (8) OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Herein the advocate for the accused/petitioner and the respondent No.2 submits before this Hon’ble court as follows; - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7851 CRL.P No. 102212 of 2025 1) That, in view of the intervention of elders the accused no. 1/petitioner, respondent no: 2, have mutually agreed to the following terms and conditions mentioned below; 2) That, the respondent no: 2/ complainant had lodged the complaint against the accused / petitioner in Lakshmeshwar Police Station in Crime No:00115/2024 for the offence punishable U/sec 352, 351(2) of BNS, 2023, U/sec 67 of IT Act, 2000 and U/sec 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act, 1989 (Amendment) Act-2015 currently pending on the file of Hon'ble Additional District and Sessions Judge, At Gadag in SPL. C. No 247/2024 the dispute as aroused between the petitioner, respondent no: 2 & victims has been compromised the matter amicably. Hence in view of the same the petitioners have filed this petition quashing of entire proceeding. 3) The petitioners, respondent no: 2 at the intervention of the well-wishers and the elderly members of both the side family members decided to put an end to the dispute between them and accordingly arrived at a settlement of dispute and same is without their being any undue influence, coercion or threat from anybody out of their free will and wish, respondent no: 2 have agreed to not to prosecute any other criminal cases nor the above case as same is in personal in nature, accordingly to facilitate compounding of the said offences alleged by the respondent no: 2 against the petitioner herein the above mentioned petition is filed. 4) The respondent no: 2 have agreed to close the proceedings as mentioned against the petitioners & also agreed to give up all their claims in respect of said cases as the dispute is in respect of personal in nature the alleged Injury is simple in nature. Hence it is just and necessary to permit the petitioner & respondent no: 2 to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7851 CRL.P No. 102212 of 2025 compound the said case instead of subjecting the petitioners to face the trial. 5) In view of the above settlement between petitioners, respondent no: 2. The respondent no: 2 is filing her respective affidavits along with this Joint memo of compromise. PRAYER THEREFORE, the petitioner/ accused & respondent no. 2/complainant humbly pray that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and grant permission to compound the said offences and consequently QUASH the further proceeding against the Accused / petitioner as in Lakshmeshwar Police Station in Crime No: 00115/2024 for the offence punishable U/sec 352, 351(2) of BNS, 2023, U/sec 67 of IT Act, 2000 and U/sec 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act, 1989 (Amendment) Act- 2015 currently pending on the file of Hon'ble Additional District and Sessions Judge, At Gadag in SPL. C. No 247/2024 and may please to Acquit the said accused / petitioners, in the ends of justice.” 4. Along with the joint memo, respondent No.2 Smt.Mallavva @ Mala wife of Gurappa Lamani filed her affidavit stating that, in view of the intervention of the elders, she entered compromise with the petitioner and settled the matter. She has further stated in her affidavit that, she has withdrawn the case against the petitioner, which is pending in Spl.Case No.247/2024 pending on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7851 CRL.P No. 102212 of 2025 5. Since the accused and the de-facto complainant have compromised the dispute with each other, it will be a futile exercise, if the accused is subjected to trial, since the probability of their conviction is remote and bleak. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr1 has held at paragraph Nos.31 to 35 as under: "31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following 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 the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: (I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal 1 (2014) 6 SCC 466 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7851 CRL.P No. 102212 of 2025 proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. (II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. (III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. (IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7851 CRL.P No. 102212 of 2025 conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. (VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7851 CRL.P No. 102212 of 2025 going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7851 CRL.P No. 102212 of 2025 there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime. 32. After having clarified the legal position in the manner aforesaid, we proceed to discuss the case at hand. 33. In the present case, FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 was registered under Section 307/324/323/34 IPC. Investigation was completed, whereafter challan was presented in the court against the petitioner herein. Charges have also been framed; the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. At this juncture, parties entered into compromise on the basis of which petition under Section 482 of the Code was filed by the petitioners namely the accused persons for quashing of the criminal proceedings under the said FIR. As per the copy of the settlement which was annexed along with the petition, the compromise took place between the parties on 12.7.2013 when respectable members of the Gram Panchayat held a meeting under the Chairmanship of Sarpanch. It is stated that on the intervention of the said persons/Panchayat, both the parties were agreed for compromise and have also decided to live with peace in future with each other. It was argued that since the parties have decided to keep harmony between the parties so that in future they are able to live with peace and love and they are the residents of the same village, the High Court should have accepted the said compromise and quash the proceedings. 34. We find from the impugned order that the sole reason which weighed with the High Court in refusing to accept the settlement between the parties was the nature of injuries. If we go by that factor alone, normally we would tend to agree with the High Court’s approach. However, as pointed out hereinafter, some other attendant and inseparable circumstances also need to be kept in mind which compel us to take a different view. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7851 CRL.P No. 102212 of 2025 35. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., “respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized”. This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly.'' (emphasis supplied) - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7851 CRL.P No. 102212 of 2025 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dasari Srikanth vs. State of Telangana2 has held at paragraph Nos.8, 9 and 10 as under:“ “8. Since, the appellant and the complainant have married each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger. 9. As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court and modified by the High Court. 10. As a result, the impugned judgment dated 27th June, 2023 passed by the High Court and judgment dated 9th April, 2021 passed by the trial Court are hereby quashed and set aside.” 8. Therefore in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties, I deem it appropriate to accept the settlement between the parties and terminate the proceedings qua the petitioner. For the afore said reason I pass the following : 2 2024 Live Law (SC) 391 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7851 CRL.P No. 102212 of 2025 ORDER (i) The criminal petition is disposed of. (ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl.Case No.247/2024 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, stands quashed. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE EM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27