- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24759 WP No. 15495 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MAY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 15495 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI. ADITYA MANOJRAO GHANTEWAR GHANTEWAR, S/O MANOJRAO GHANTEWAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT DHAMAGAON RLY, VTC JUNE DHAMANGAON, DISTRICT AMRAVATI, MAHARASHTRA STATE. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. PAYAL S. KAWARE FOR SRI. SPARSHA SHETTY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA PS, REPRESENTED BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 560 001. 2. HARSHVARDHAN REDDY, S/O, VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. 101, 8TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS GKVK ROAD, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, YELAHANKA, BANGLURU CITY - 560 006. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA H.M., HCGP; SRI. SHRIRAM ADIGA., ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24759 WP No. 15495 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2/COMPLAINANT DATED 26.07.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE A ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER CONCERN AND; B. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT, FILED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1 IN CRIME NO. 264/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 4TH ACJM, AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER 406, 420, 120B, 34 OF IPC. VIDE ANNEXURE-B ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER CONCERN AND; THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER This petition is by the accused No.2 in Crime No.264/2025 pending on the file of IV Additional CMM Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B and 34 of IPC. 2. Allegation in the complaint is that the accused persons induced the complainant/respondent No.2 to pay Rs.60 lakhs with an assurance of investing the same in the share market. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24759 WP No. 15495 of 2026 3. Learned counsel for the accused No.2/ petitioner submits that matter has been resolved amicably between the petitioner herein and the complainant. 4. Complainant is present and also represented by his counsel. They do not dispute matter having been settled amicably. An application under Section 320(2) Cr.PC read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is filed by the parties along with joint affidavit which reads as under; "1. That the above Writ Petition is filed seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of Crime No.264/2025 registered by Yelahanka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, presently pending before the learned 4th ACJM at Bengaluru. 2. That during the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have amicably settled the dispute amongst themselves without any force, coercion or undue influence. 3. That as a part of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, the Petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) to Respondent No.2 towards full and final settlement of all disputes arising out of the present proceedings. 4. That today, the Petitioner is further paying an additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) to Respondent No.2 towards complete and final settlement, and Respondent No.2 acknowledges receipt of the said amount to his full satisfaction. 5. The respondent no 2 has filed case under Section 406, 420, 120B and 34 of IPC which is pending in Crime no. 264/2025 against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a quashing petition under Section - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24759 WP No. 15495 of 2026 482 Cr.PC before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which is pending. The respondent no. 2 undertakes to co-operate in closing of the 482 petition. 6. That in view of the aforesaid settlement, Respondent No.2 has agreed that he shall not initiate any civil, criminal or any other proceedings against the Petitioner in respect of the subject matter of the present dispute in future. 7. That in case any proceedings have already been initiated by Respondent No.2 against the Petitioner arising out of the same transaction and cause of action, Respondent No.2 undertakes to withdraw the same in accordance with law. 8. That the compromise entered into between the parties is voluntary, genuine and without any force, coercion or undue influence from any quarter. 9. That Respondent No.2/Complainant has no objection if the offences alleged against the Petitioner are permitted to be compounded and the entire criminal proceedings are quashed. 10. That the dispute between the parties is purely personal in nature and continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. 11. That the compromise arrived at between the parties is lawful, voluntary and in the interest of justice. 12. Hence, it is just and necessary that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the parties to compound the offences and consequently quash the proceedings in Crime No.264/2025." 6. Joint memo along with affidavit of the complainant is filed and same is taken on record. 7. Heard. Perused the records. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24759 WP No. 15495 of 2026 8. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2012)10 SCC 303, at paragraph 61 has held as under - "61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions of the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24759 WP No. 15495 of 2026 and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 9. On a query by this Court complainant/ respondent No.2 submits that he has received entire amount from the accused No.2/petitioner herein and he has no claim of any nature whatsoever in the matter. 10. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Consequently, Crime No.264/2025 pending on the file of IV Additional CMM Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B and 34 of IPC against petitioner is quashed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3