- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14850 CRL.P No. 102117 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102117 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI CHAMANLAL S/O. LATE RAMBAI N. PATEL @ CHIMANBAI PATEL AGE: 70 YEARS OCC. RETIRED (EX EMPOLOYEE ROTOMAC COMPANY) RESIDENT OF D-3, DEVINE HIGHLAND SOCIETY SINCERITY ROAD, SOLA AHMEDABAD GUJRAT-380 060. 2. SHRI PARTH S/O. DILEEP KUMAR DAS AGE: 56 YEARS OCC. BUSINESS RESIDENT OF E-51, HIVE APARTMENT SION EAST MUMBAI-400 022. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH UDYAMBAG POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD. 2. SHRI GURURAJ JAINAPUR AGE: MAJOR OCC. BUSINESS Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14850 CRL.P No. 102117 of 2025 RESIDING AT PLOT NO.73 R.C. NAGAR BELAGAVI-590 006. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, H.C.G.P. FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) * * * THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.1325 OF 2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED JMFC IV COURT, BELAGAVI ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.74 OF 2011 OF UDYAMBAG POLICE STATION FOR THE COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 384, 386, 389, 392, 397, 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 170 AND 120B OF INDIAN PENAL CODE. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. Shivraj S. Balloli, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 7 and Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State through video conference. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14850 CRL.P No. 102117 of 2025 2. The petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 7 have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.(Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1325/2013 pending on the file of learned IV JMFC, Belagavi for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 384, 386, 389, 392, 397, 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 170 and 120(B) of IPC. 3. As per the order sheet in C.C.No.1325/2013 on the file of learned IV JMFC, Belagavi, it appears that the defacto complainant has filed a memo dated 31.10.2022 for withdrawal of the complaint. The said memo reads as follows: Herein the original complainant in the above case submits as under: 1. That he has filed a complaint against the above named accused persons in Udyambag Police Station Cr No. 74/2011 for the offences punishable U/S. 341, 385, 506(2), read with Sec. 34 of IPC, andin pursuance of the FIR registered against the accused, the IO has carried out the investigation and during the course of investigation some of the accused were arrested and obtained bail and some of them not arrested and some recoveries had been made and some of the material objects connected to the above crime are not recovered and pending arrest of the some of accused and recoveries the IO has laid down the incomplete charge sheet requesting the Hon'ble Court that permission be accorded to file additional/supplementary charge sheet by way of further investigation U/Sec. 173(8) of Cr.P.C. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14850 CRL.P No. 102117 of 2025 2. It is submitted that, the entire Master Mind of the crime was accused No. 3 Vikram Khothari, pending arrest of some of the accused and recoveries this Hon'ble Court was pleased to register the case in the CC register but declined to take the cognizance of the offences alleged and issue of summons to the accused persons. 3. It is submitted that, the main allegation is against accused No. 3 who was master mind of the entire crime and the recoveries which are ought to be made by the IO would be from accused No. 3. Now in view of accused No. 3 is no more, case against him is abated and the crime which was registered by the complainant a decade ago never seen light of the day from more than 10 years. Hence Complainant above named does not want to prosecute the case against other accused persons as prosecuting other accused persons do not serve the purpose of the complainant, as main accused is already dead. 4. It is submitted that, it is pertinent to note that, after filing of the part charge sheet before this Hon'ble Court till day progress was shown by the IO and nor the progress was informed to the complainant as per Sec. 173 (2) (ii) of Cr.P.C. 5. It is submitted that, the allegation made in the complaint and since charge sheet is incomplete and no cognizance of offence was taken against any of the accused persons, the offences mentioned in complaint and in part charge sheet are remained as mere allegation and do not satisfactorily comply with the ingredients of each of the section alleged in investigation, in the absence of full charge sheet. Therefore, the allegations made in the complaint does not fall or have not attained the stage where this Hon'ble Court can decide whether allegations are going to be proved or not. Therefore continuing with prosecuting the case will be ended up in futile effort and hence the complainant on his own volition intended to withdraw the complaint against the accused persons. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14850 CRL.P No. 102117 of 2025 Therefore, the complainant prays that, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to close the case as original complainant has withdrawn the case, in the interest of Justice. 4. In view of the above, respondent No.2/complainant herein has no objection for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 7. 5. In the light of the above, the parties prayed to quash the entire proceedings insofar as the petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 7 are concerned. 6. The allegations made in the complaint shows that there was a dispute between the complainant and the accused and same is settled as per the advice of the elders without any compulsion or coercion. Therefore, continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners is not at all necessary and that would be nothing but abuse of process of law. Since the alleged offences are non-compoundable in nature, the accused prayed to quash the proceedings and permit to compound the offences. As the matter is settled between the parties, it is just and necessary to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the entire proceedings. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14850 CRL.P No. 102117 of 2025 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors Vs State of Punjab & Anr reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 at para Nos.31 to 35 has held as under: "29. 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: 29.1. 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. 29.2. 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14850 CRL.P No. 102117 of 2025 29.3. 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 the 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. 29.4. 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. 29.5. 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. 29.6. 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14850 CRL.P No. 102117 of 2025 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. 29.7. 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 to 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. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14850 CRL.P No. 102117 of 2025 30. After having clarified the legal position in the manner aforesaid, we proceed to discuss the case at hand. 31. In the present case, FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 was registered under Sections 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. 32. 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. 33. 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14850 CRL.P No. 102117 of 2025 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." 8. From the perusal of the aforesaid decision and the facts and circumstances and the material available on record, it appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported offence made by the accused on the complainant. In this context, the Court finds that, the elders of the village intervened in the matter and parties have settled their disputes and have decided to live peacefully in future. This becomes an important consideration. In view of the compromise between the parties, there is a minimal chance of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14850 CRL.P No. 102117 of 2025 witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. When the Court takes all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the Court is of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused persons is liable to be quashed. 9. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and in view of the ratio laid down in the above decision cited supra, as, the proceedings against accused Nos.4 and 5 has already been quashed in Crl.P.No.100975/2024 dated 18.07.2024 and Crl.P.No.102481/2024 dated 17.01.2025, the case against the petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 7 is also liable to be quashed on the ground of parity, as the allegations made against accused Nos.4 and 5 and the petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 7 stand on the same footing. Hence, the Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The criminal petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings in C.C. No.1325/2013 pending on the file of the learned IV JMFC, Belagavi, for the offences - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14850 CRL.P No. 102117 of 2025 punishable under Sections 341, 384, 386, 389, 392, 397, 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 170 and 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC, are hereby quashed, insofar as the petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 7 is concerned. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2