- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24743 CRL.P No. 7173 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 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7173 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SATISH M S/O MAGHANATHAN D, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O NO A 12, SRIRAMANGARI, MURUGESHPALYA, BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT BANGALORE - 560 017. 2. JOSHVA RAJ.S D/O SUNIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO 121, 5TH SQUARE MURPHY TOWN, ULSOOR, H.A.L II STAGE BANGALORE - 560 008. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, JEEVAN BHEEMANAGAR POLICE STATION, HALASUR SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY - 560 075. REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24743 CRL.P No. 7173 of 2026 2. SMT. ANTHONY RAJ S/O MICHAEL RAJ, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 48, 1ST CROSS, KADRANAPALYA, OPP INDRANAGARA BUS DEPOT, BENGALURU - 560 038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA H.M., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. BIPIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR NO.117/2026 REGISTERED IN JEEVAN BHEEMANAGAR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352 AND 3(5) OF BNS 2023 IN CRIME NO.117/2026 PENDING BEFORE THE X ADDL.CMM MAYOHALL BENGALURU CITY INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONERS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.117/2026 registered by Jeevan Bheemanagar Police Station, Halasuru Sub-Division, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 are before this Court seeking quash of the said Crime No.117/2026. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24743 CRL.P No. 7173 of 2026 2. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and the respondent No.2- defacto complainant are personally present before this Court. 3. Respondent No.2-defacto complainant is stated to be the cousin brother of petitioner No.1. Offences alleged are compoundable. Parties have filed joint memo which reads under: '' The Petitioners and Respondent No.2 most respectfully submit that, in view of the compromise arrived at between them, they do not wish to continue the present proceedings. 1. Respondent No.2 states that due to the pressure and circumstances prevailing at the time, the complaint came to be registered, and now Respondent No.2 does not wish to prosecute the petitioner further. 2. The parties submit that the dispute has been settled amicably and that there are no surviving grievances between them. 3. Respondent No.2 states that he has no objection for quashing of the FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.117/2026 of Jeevan Bheemanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, pending before the X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru, insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Therefore, the parties pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the proceedings in the above case, in the interest of justice and equity.'' 4. Heard. Perused the records. 5. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Averments in the complaint do not indicate any ill-will, ill- intention or motive. Even if the complaint allegations are taken - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24743 CRL.P No. 7173 of 2026 on face value, there is no likelihood of petitioners being convicted of the alleged offences. Besides, the parties being relative and have compromised and resolved their differences. 6. 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 No.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 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24743 CRL.P No. 7173 of 2026 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." 7. In the case of Naushey Ali & Others v. State of U.P. & Another reported in 2025 4 SCC 78, at paragraphs 31 and 32 has held as under - "31. We are also inclined to conclude that considering the overall circumstances, the nature of the weapon and the nature of the injury (fracture of the head of distal phalanx of left ring finger), the offence alleged, on facts, does not fall in that category of cases where the court should deny relief in the event of a settlement. At the highest, the offence alleged could be one under Section 326IPC. It could not be said, on facts, considering all the circumstances that this is a crime which has such an harmful effect on the public and that it has the effect of seriously threatening the well-being of the society. We make it clear that we are saying so on the facts of the present case. 32. We are also firmly of the opinion that proceeding with the trial, when the parties have amicably resolved the dispute in the present case, would be futile and the ends of justice require that the settlement be given effect to by quashing the proceedings. It would be a grave abuse of process to let this trial remain pending under the above circumstances, particularly when the dispute is settled and resolved." 8. In the light of the facts narrated above and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the settled position of law, this Court do not see any reason to continue the proceedings, as the same would amount to abuse of process of law also otherwise may create further disharmony amongst the family members. Accordingly, the following : - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24743 CRL.P No. 7173 of 2026 ORDER 1. Petition is allowed. 2. Consequently, Crime No.117/2026 registered by Jeevan Bheemanagar Police Station, Halasuru Sub- Division, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15