- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31643 CRL.P No. 15734 of 2025 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. 15734 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MR. SANDEEP B, S/O. P.S. BHASAKAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. NO.637/51, 62ND CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR 5TH BLOCK, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU 560010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION, REP. BY HCGP, (HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR), BENGALURU 560001. 2. SRI VENKATESH K, S/O. LATE KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. NO.1176, 18TH B MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU 560010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. DEEPTHI ALVA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI VISHWANATH.C, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31643 CRL.P No. 15734 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED.16.12.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE IN CRIME NO.114/2024 TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CC NO 1543/2025 ON THE FILE OF XXXII ADD.CJM, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioner – accused is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.1543/2025, pending before the XXXII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences under Sections 118(2), 351(2) and 352 of the BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 in unison would submit that during the subsistence of these proceedings, the parties to the lis have entered into settlement amongst themselves by drawing up certain terms and conditions. The parties have filed an application under Sections 359 of the BNSS, 2023 along with a joint memo before this Court seeking permission to compound the offences. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31643 CRL.P No. 15734 of 2025 3. The joint memo reads as follows: “1. That the above-captioned Criminal Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 16.12.2024 and the consequential order of cognizance dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Honble XXXII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru in Cr. No. 114/2024, in CC. No. 1543/2025, for offences alleged to be punishable under Sections 118(1), 351(2) and 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. That the FIR in Crime No. 144/2024 (re-numbered as Cr. No. 114/2024) was registered at Rajajinagar Police Station, Bengaluru, on 20.10.2024, on the basis of a complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2 / Complainant arising out of an alleged incident on the evening of 19.10.2024 near Dhobhi Ghat Circle, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. The dispute is purely personal and civil in nature, arising from a trivial altercation between private individuals over a matter of civic concern. 3. That on 12.01.2026, this Hon'ble Court, in its wisdom, issued notice to the parties with the specific intent of exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 / Complainant. That pursuant to the notice issued by this Hon'ble Court, and upon meaningful discussions facilitated thereby, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 21 Complainant have since resolved all their differences arising from the incident of 19.10.2024 and have arrived at a full and final amicable settlement of all disputes, claims and grievances that formed the subject matter of the complaint and the consequential criminal proceedings. 4. That the Respondent No. 2/ Complainant, Sri. Venkatesh K, voluntarily and unconditionally expresses his unequivocal desire to withdraw the complaint filed against the Petitioner. The Complainant states that he no longer wishes to pursue the criminal proceedings and bears no grievance whatsoever against the Petitioner. The Complainant further affirms that the settlement has been entered into of his own free will, without any coercion, threat, undue influence, or inducement of any kind. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31643 CRL.P No. 15734 of 2025 5. That the Petitioner, Mr. Sandeep B, on his part, has also expressed good faith and goodwill towards the Complainant. The Petitioner is an MBBS student pursuing his medical education at Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bengaluru, and has no prior criminal antecedents whatsoever. The continuation of these proceedings would cause immense hardship and irreparable prejudice to the Petitioner's medical career and future prospects. 6. That the offences alleged against the Petitioner under Sections 118(1), 351(2) and 352 of BNS, 2023, are personal and private in nature. They arise from an isolated, spontaneous altercation between private individuals and do not involve any element of public order, national security, or any offence that strikes at the very root of society. The dispute is purely inter-personal and does not require the coercive arm of the State to be set in motion in the absence of desire to prosecute on the part of the complainant. 7. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has, in a catena of decisions, laid down that where the parties to a criminal proceeding have arrived at an amicable settlement, the High Court is well within its jurisdiction, while exercising inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS (formerly Section 482 Cr.PC), to quash the proceedings in order to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice. This principle has been consistently affirmed in cases where the matter is essentially private and personal in nature. 8. That the offences in the present case do not fall within the category of grave offences like murder, dacolty, rape, offences under special statutes such as the POCSO Act or the Prevention of Corruption Act, or offences against the State. The alleged incident is a minor altercation between strangers in a public place, and the prosecution of the same serves no public interest now that the parties have settled. In fact, compelling the parties to undergo a protracted trial despite their settlement would amount to an exercise in futility and a waste of precious judicial time. 9. That the Respondent No. 1 / State has no independent evidence or interest to prosecute the matter in the absence of the complainant's support for continuation of proceedings. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31643 CRL.P No. 15734 of 2025 The entire prosecution is based on the testimony of the Complainant without witnesses, and the Complainant's voluntary decision to withdraw the complaint makes the trial unviable and an abuse of process.” In the light of the afore-quoted joint memo of the parties, I deem it appropriate to terminate the proceedings against the petitioner, as the dispute and the allegations are between the individuals and not against the State. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (a) The criminal petition is disposed. (b) The proceedings in C.C.No.1543/2025, pending before the XXXII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, qua the petitioner, stands quashed. I.A.No.1/2025 also stands disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 3 Sl No.: 9