- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8538 CRL.P No. 102546 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102546 OF 2025 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: REVANSIDDAPPA @ SIDDU S/O. SANGAPPA KUBASAD, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYED IN PVT. COMPANY, R/AT. SAVADI, TQ. RON AND DIST. GADAG, NOW R/AT: WELFARE TOWNSHIP, HOUSE OF MALLIKARJUNA GURUVA, TQ AND DIST. GADAG. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, GADAG WOMEN POLICE STATION, GADAG, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. 2. SMT. RAJESHWARI M. BHOOYAR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/AT. S.M. KRISHNA NAGAR, TQ AND DIST. GADAG-582101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ASIF G. AND SMT. ROOPA A., ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER AS IN GADAG WOMEN POLICE STATION CRIME NO: 0010/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.376(2)(F)(N) AND 417 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT GADAG IN S.C. NO.94/2024, 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:8538 CRL.P No. 102546 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri G.S. Mot, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State, and Smt. Roopa A., learned counsel for respondent No.2 – the de facto complainant. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in S.C. No.94/2024 pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f)(n) and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The sum and substance of the charge sheet is that the victim lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner had committed sexual assault upon her. Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered, and investigation was initiated. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet for the aforementioned offences. On receipt of the charge sheet, the trial Court took cognizance and issued - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8538 CRL.P No. 102546 of 2025 process against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the de facto complainant submit that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. In this regard, they have filed a joint memo under Sections 359(6) and 8 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The contents of the joint memo are as follows: That, the respondent no. 2 herein is the complainant and respondent по. 2 has filed complaint against the petitioner/accused on the false allegation on one or the other reasons before Gadag Women Police Station in Crime No: 0010/2024 for the offences punishable U/Sec.376(2)(f)(n) & 417 of IPC pending on the files of Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, At Gadag in SC. No 94/2024. The dispute as aroused between the petitioner & 376(2)(f) (n) & 417 has been amicably settled. Now petitioner & victim have compromised the matter amicably & are willing to set aside their differences and stay as law abiding citizens. Hence in view of the same the petitioner has filed this petition quashing the further proceeding. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8538 CRL.P No. 102546 of 2025 2) The accused / Petitioner had agreed to pay Rs 12,00,000/- as full & final settlement in one term to the Respondent no. 2 and for her child by name Akshay Kumar Bhuyyar & respondent no. 2 agrees to withdraw all cases, suit filed for partition, possession and maintenance which is pending before Hon'ble Court of Senior Civil Judge, At: Ron in OS No 147/2025. The above amount will be paid within 5 working days from release of police custody, that the petitioner agrees to pay the amount before Hon'ble Court of Senior Civil Judge, At: Ron in OS No 147/2025 at the time of compromise & child will be in the custody of respondent no. 2, That the petitioner & respondent No. 2 undertakes and agrees that the parents will not demand or claim any amount vice-versa at any time in the future, Respondent no. 2 assure that she will not prosecute any other criminal cases and civil case and there will be no future claim of movable, Immovable properties and maintenance from the petitioner by Respondent no. 2 and her child by name Akshay Kumar and further agreed to withdraw above suit subject to above payment & that the petitioner we will have no right in child, respondent no. 2 & their parents. 3) The above case being personal in nature, accordingly to facilitate compounding of the said offence alleged by the respondent no: 2 against the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8538 CRL.P No. 102546 of 2025 petitioner herein the above-mentioned petition is filed. 4) The petitioner and respondent no: 2 are both major wants to live their lives as a law-abiding citizen. Hence it is just and necessary to permit the petitioner and the respondent no: 2 to compound the said case instead of subjecting the petitioner to face the trial. 5) In view of the above settlement, the respondent no: 2 is filing the affidavit along with this Joint memo of compromise. 6) The petitioner & respondent no: 2 submit that the accused is in Judicial Custody and in view of the said compromise he may be released from judicial custody. THEREFORE, the petitioner / accused and the victim humbly prays that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition as prayed for and grant permission to compound the said offences and consequently QUASH the entire proceedings against the Accused / petitioner as in Gadag Women Police Station Crime No: 0010/2024 for the offences punishable U/Sec.376(2)(f) (n) & 417 of IPC pending on the file Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8538 CRL.P No. 102546 of 2025 Judge, At Gadag in SC. No 94/2024, in the interest of Justice.” 5. Additionally, the de facto complainant has filed an affidavit, the contents of which are as follows: 1) I state that, I am the complainant in the above said case. 2) I state that, in view of the intervention of elders the petitioners and myself, have mutually agreed to settle the matters in the following terms and conditions mentioned below. 3) I had lodged the complaint against the against petitioner / accused before Gadag Women Police Station in Crime No: 0010/2024 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 376(2) (f) (n) & 417 of IPC pending on the files of Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, At Gadag in SC. No 94/2024 and behalf of my son I have also filed suit for partition, possession and maintenance before senior civil judge Ron in OS No. 147/2025 same is pending for consideration, Now the dispute between us & petitioner and has been settled and has been compromised the matter amicably. Hence in view of the same the petitioner has filed this petition. 4) I further state that, myself at the intervention of the well-wishers and the elderly members of both - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8538 CRL.P No. 102546 of 2025 the side family members for my future life. I decided to put an end to the dispute between ourselves and accordingly arrived at a settlement of dispute and same is without their being any undue influence, coercion or threat from anybody and is out of my own free will & wish, 5) The accused / Petitioner had agreed to pay Rs 12,00,000/- to the me and for my child Name Akshay Kumar, at the time of compromise in suit for partition, possession and maintenance pending before Hon'ble Court of Senior Civil Judge, At: Ron in OS No 147/2025, The above amount will be paid within 5 working days from release of police custody, I undertakes and agrees I & my parents will not demand or claim any amount from the petitioner at any time in the future, I assure that I will not prosecute any other criminal cases and civil case and there will be no future claim of movable, Immovable property and maintenance from the petitioner by Me and my child Name Akshay Kumar and further agreed to withdraw above suit subject to above payment, as same above case is in personal in nature, accordingly to facilitate compounding of the said offences alleged by me against the petitioner. 6) I agree to close the entire proceedings as filed by me against the petitioner, I also agree to give-up all their claims in respect of said cases as - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8538 CRL.P No. 102546 of 2025 arouse in the dispute I further say that since the dispute between the petitioner and myself is settled amicably and I agree not to prosecute/contest the above-mentioned case against the petitioner/accused as the alleged incident is personal in nature. Hence it is just and necessary to compound the said case instead of subjecting the petitioner to face the trial.” 6. It appears from the record that the accused and the de facto complainant have resolved their dispute amicably. A joint memo has been filed to this effect, wherein the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation to the de facto complainant. Both parties have expressed that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is unwarranted and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Since the offences alleged are non-compoundable in nature, the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings to give effect to the compromise. Today, respondent No.2 – the de facto complainant is present before the Court and has affirmed the settlement by filing an affidavit. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State submits that, in light of the settlement - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8538 CRL.P No. 102546 of 2025 reached between the parties, this Court may permit the compromise and quash the proceedings. 8. Smt. Roopa A., learned counsel for respondent No.2 – the de facto complainant, submits that since the matter has been amicably settled and the accused has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- to the victim, the proceedings may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 9. Upon perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the dispute between the accused and the de facto complainant has been resolved amicably. In the given circumstances, proceeding with the trial would be an exercise in futility, especially when the chances of securing a conviction appear to be remote and bleak. Continuation of the criminal proceedings in such a situation would indeed be an abuse of the process of law. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8538 CRL.P No. 102546 of 2025 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another1, has observed in paragraphs 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 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. 1 (2014) 6 SCC 466 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8538 CRL.P No. 102546 of 2025 (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 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 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8538 CRL.P No. 102546 of 2025 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 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, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8538 CRL.P No. 102546 of 2025 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, 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 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8538 CRL.P No. 102546 of 2025 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. 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 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8538 CRL.P No. 102546 of 2025 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. Therefore, in light of the amicable settlement between the victim and the accused, and considering that the accused has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation, which appears to be fair and reasonable, it is just and proper to allow the petition. Accordingly, the following order is passed: - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8538 CRL.P No. 102546 of 2025 ORDER [i] The petition is hereby disposed of. [ii] The impugned proceedings in S.C. No.94/2024 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, insofar as the accused is concerned, stands quashed. [iii] Any pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE Rsh /ct-an List no.: 1 sl no.: 8