- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31646 CRL.P No. 1851 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1851 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI SYED AFRAN, S/O. SYED ZAHEER, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.17, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN, VALMIKINAGAR, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU 560 026. 2. SRI SYED ARBAZ, S/O. SYED ZAHEER, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO.13, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, VALMIKINAGAR, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 026. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI TEJAS N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHAMARAJPET POLICE, BENGALURU - 560 018. (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HCK, BANGALORE - 01). 2. SRI MOHAMMED RAYAN, S/O. AMEER PASHA, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31646 CRL.P No. 1851 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT 5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, VALMIKINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 026. 3. SRI MOHAMMED OWAIS PASHA, S/O. AMEER PASHA, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/AT 5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, VALMIKINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 026. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. DEEPTHI ALVA, HCGP. FOR R-1; SRI MUSTAKEEN ALAM, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.50627/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE V ADDL CJM, BENGALURU WHICH IS ARRING OUT OF CRIME NO.149/2025 OF CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR OFFENCE P/SU/ 109, 126(2) R/W SEC.3(5) OF BNS 2023 AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.50627/2025, pending before the V Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, for the offences under Sections 109, 126(2) r/w. 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31646 CRL.P No. 1851 of 2026 2. Heard Sri Tejas N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Deepthi Alva, learned High Court Government Pleader Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Mustakeen Alam, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. The issue is not with regard to the pendency of the merit of the matter before the concerned Court. During the subsistence of these proceedings, the parties to the lis file an application – I.A.No.1/2026 under Sections 359(2) r/w. 528 of the BNSS, seeking permission to compound of the offences mentioned in the FIR along with a joint affidavit. Learned counsel for the parties have also appended a copy of the wound certificate of respondent No.3 – injured to contend that the injuries suffered by the victim are simple in nature and pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings. The joint memo of the parties reads as under: “The petitioners and the second and third respondents have amicably settled the dispute and mutually agreed to compound the offences alleged in C.C. No.50627/2025 on the file of the Hon'ble V Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No. 149/2025 of Chamarajpet Police Station, Bengaluru for offences under Sections 109 and 126(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31646 CRL.P No. 1851 of 2026 The petitioners have also agreed to withdraw the complaint in Crime No. 147/2025 of Chamarajpet Police Station, Bengaluru, culminated which in C.C. No.46739/2025 on the file of the Hon'ble V Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru. The second respondent and the injured victim, of their own free will and without any coercion or conditions, have consented to compound the offences and have no objection to the quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No.50627/2025, as continuation of the same would amount to an abuse of process of law and such quashing is necessary to secure the ends of justice.” 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently oppose the closure of the petition on the score that the offences alleged is the one punishable under Sections 109 and 126(2) of the BNS and in an offence under Section 109 of the BNS, the case should not be closed by way of settlement and the accused should face the trial and come out clean in a full blown trial. 5. The issue that stands for consideration is whether this Court by exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS can permit the parties to compound and quash an offence punishable under Section 109 of the IPC, which is heinous and non-compoundable in nature. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31646 CRL.P No. 1851 of 2026 6. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of NAUSHEY ALI v. STATE OF U.P.1 while reiterating the law laid down by it in the case of STATE OF M.P. v. LAXMI NARAYAN2 holds that, the Court answering the settlement even for an offence under Section 109 of the BNS, which was Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the earlier regime, should not be bogged down by the offence, but has to look into the ingredients of the offence and examine whether the act of the accused would meet the ingredients of the alleged offence. The judgment of the Apex Court reads as follows: “20. Will the mere mention of Section 307IPC in the criminal proceedings force the court to adopt a hands-off approach, when parties come forward with a settlement? In that event, what should be the duty of the court and what are the tests to be applied to decide in which cases settlements would be accepted and in which cases it would not be? 21. In State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan [State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706] , after discussing the ratio in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] and other judgments, this Court held : (Laxmi Narayan case [State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706] , SCC pp. 704-705, para 15) 1 (2025) 4 SCC 78 2 (2019) 5 SCC 688 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31646 CRL.P No. 1851 of 2026 “15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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; 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes 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; 15.4. Offences under Section 307IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307IPC 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 307IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31646 CRL.P No. 1851 of 2026 would lead to framing the charge under Section 307IPC. 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/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court inNarinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5 [Ed. : Para 15.5 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./22/2019 dated 3- 4-2019.] . While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc.” (emphasis supplied) 22. Before we apply this judgment to the facts, it will be worthwhile to recall the observations of Sikri, J. in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] : (SCC p. 481, para 26) “26. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31646 CRL.P No. 1851 of 2026 between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307IPC as well.” (emphasis supplied) 23. Coming back to Laxmi Narayan [State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706] , this Court has held that mere mention of Section 307IPC in the FIR or the charge-sheet should not be the basis for adopting a hands-off approach. It has further held that it would be open for the court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307IPC is there for the sake of it or whether there is evidence to back it. It has been held that the courts may go by the nature of injuries sustained; as to whether the injuries are inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body and the nature of weapon used. It has also been clarified that such an exercise would be permissible after investigation and filing of charge- sheet/framing of charges or during the trial. (See para 15.4 of Laxmi Narayan [State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706] .) 24. Coming to the facts of the case, admittedly, there is a settlement between the parties. The case filed by the appellants' party which was prior in point of time and that too on the same day of occurrence, has been settled. 25. It should be recalled that, at the outset, after investigation, the police actually closed the case in its final report of 7-9-1991. It was the trial court, which by its order of 5-9-1992, refused to accept the same and summoned the appellants. The incident is of 11-8-1991 i.e. about 33½ years back. No doubt, there is a reference to the firing in the FIR but admittedly there was no injury. The allegation is that firing was done by Abdul Waris. He is since deceased. The facts, assuming to be true, also do not make out a case of common object for the appellants under Section 149IPC insofar as the offence of Section 307 is concerned. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31646 CRL.P No. 1851 of 2026 26. The role attributed to the seven members, including the five appellants is not specific. General allegation was that they abused in filthy language and assaulted Mahmood with lathi and iron bars. The specific individual role was only attributed to Adbul Waris, who is since deceased. 27. In any event, the police who investigated disbelieved the entire story. No recoveries have been made of any pellets. What engaged the attention of the High Court was only the fracture of the head of the distal phalanx of left finger of Respondent 2. 28. We have seen the injuries sustained by Mahmood (R-2) from the medical evidence collected. From the injury report, it is clear that while the first four injuries were contusions and abrasions, Injuries 5, 6 and 7 pertained to incised lacerated wound and swelling on the middle finger of the left hand. We have also seen the x- ray report which shows that in the left hand there was a fracture of the head of distal phalanx of left ring finger. Assuming that this was the result of injury with lathis or iron bar, applying the test in Laxmi Narayan [State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706] , considering the injury and the nature of the weapon used, certainly no offence under Section 307IPC is made out. 29. Section 307IPC reads as under: “307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.—When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31646 CRL.P No. 1851 of 2026 30. Keeping in mind the surrounding circumstances, the nature of the weapon and the nature of the injury, on facts, we are inclined to conclude that the overt act attributed to the appellants does not bring the case within the four corners of Section 307IPC, either on a stand-alone basis or as held above with the aid of Section 149IPC. (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment notices the observations made by it in the case of NARINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB3 which states that, though an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, involving an attempt to take the life of another person, is serious in nature, the Court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that, many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to a physical commotion and sustaining of injuries by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307 of the IPC as well. The Apex Court also holds that what should be seen while considering the compromise petition of the parties is, the wound certificate of the injured person – complainant, to make out whether the injuries are simple in nature or grievous and if it is grievous to 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31646 CRL.P No. 1851 of 2026 what parts of the body of the injured complainant. The wound certificate in the case at hand indicates that the injuries inflicted are simple in nature. 7. Section 109 of the BNS corresponds to Section 307 of the IPC. Though the complaint in the case at hand is filed for several heinous offences including one punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, it ultimately stems from a quarrel between the parties, which then leads to a physical altercation. Therefore, this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in NAUSHEY ALI supra. In that light, while admonishing the parties to the subject lis not to indulge in such altercations in future, I deem it appropriate to accept the application seeking compounding of the offences and close the proceedings against the petitioners/accused. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is disposed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.50627/2025, pending before the V Additional Chief - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31646 CRL.P No. 1851 of 2026 Judicial Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, qua the petitioners stand quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 120