- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010443132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36244 CRL.P No. 9463 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9463 OF 2026 BETWEEN: KIRAN KUMAR, S/O MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT- #50, DODDSAGARHALLI, DEVANHALLI TALUK, BANGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALURU-562110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGENDRA B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHIKKABALLPURA WOMEN POLICE STATION, REP: BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. DEEPA E, W/O CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, HURLAGURKL, BANGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-56211. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. MANJUNATHA.J, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS AND QUASH THE Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010443132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36244 CRL.P No. 9463 of 2026 ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF COMPROMISE, CRIME NO.75/2025 IN SC 107/2025, HENCE BOTH ARE READY TO COMPROMISE THE MATTER. BY THE RESPONDENT CHIKKABALLAPURA WOMEN POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 109 OF BNS AND WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA, AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER/ACCUSED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers: “I) Call for relevant records. II) Quash the entire proceedings on the basis of compromise, Crime No.75/2025 In SC- 107/2025, hence both are ready to compromise the matter. By the respondent Chikkballapura Women P.S for the offences P/u sec- 109 of BNS, and which is pending on the file of Principal, District and sessions Court Chikkaballapur, against the present petitioner/accused. III) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri.Nagendra B, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP appearing - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010443132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36244 CRL.P No. 9463 of 2026 for respondent No.1, Sri.Manjunatha J, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record. 3. Though the offences is the one punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the facts in the case at hand is that the petitioner and the respondent-Complainant the complainant on 07.08.2025 at about 11.00 p.m. at Chikkaballapura District Hospital, alleging that she and accused-Kiran Kumar-petitioner herein have been living at the above address with her daughter Yukti for about 5 years. At that time, there was a quarrel between her and petitioner over the issue of when he talking to another girl on the phone and texting. On 07- 08-2025 at 11-30 am, the complainant's aunt Smt.Rathnamma came to their house for a festival. At that time, petitioner was talking to another girl on the phone and when she asked about it, there was a quarrel between them. At that time, petitioner had strangled her with the charging wire with the intention of killing her. Then when she screamed loudly, her aunt Smt.Ratnamma came and rescued her. Again, Petitioner attempted to kill her by squeezing her neck with his - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010443132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36244 CRL.P No. 9463 of 2026 hands, but she bite the petitioner hands from her mouth. Then Petitioner brought a knife from the kitchen and stabbed her two or three times on the left side of her head, near the left chest and near the left arm with the intention of killing her and also he attempted to cut her neck with the knife and when she tried to escape, he turned her left hand back, and her left hand fingers were caused blood injury but the wound certificate indicates that injuries are simple in nature. Now the petitioner has filed application seeking compounding of the offence as obtaining under Section 528 read with Section 359 of BNSS, 2023 and the parties to the lis have also filed the Joint Affidavit in that regard. The joint affidavit reads as follows: “1. We submit that we are petitioner and Respondent No 2, in the above case, I know the fact of the case hence I am swearing this affidavit ourself at Bengaluru. 2. We submit that we had filed this petition for quashing the entire proceedings Crime No.75/2025 In SC-107/2025, hence both are ready to compromise the matter. By the respondent Chikkballapura Women P.s for the offences P/u sec- 109 of BNS, and which is pending on the file of Principal, District and sessions Court Chikkaballapur,, 3. We submits in order to avoid the repetition, averments of the petition may be treated as part of our case & facts, 4. I submits that we have a good case on merits and entire proceedings will not be quashed I would grate hardship and will be put the street, if the petition is allowed there is no hardship or prejudice will cause to the other side. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010443132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36244 CRL.P No. 9463 of 2026 5. above pars are true and correct best of my knowledge am well conversant with the facts of the case, hence swearing to this Affidavit on behalf of me. WHEREFORE, I most humbly pray that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the accompanying application, and quash the entire proceedings on the basis of compromise, in the interest of justice.” 4. Since the injuries in wound certificate depicts that they are simple in nature, it would not attract the ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In an identical issue, the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. LAXMI NARAYAN AND OTHERS1, has held as follows: "12. Now so far as the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] is concerned, this Court in para 29.6 admitted that the offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, this Court further observed that 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. Its further corroboration with the medical evidence or other evidence is to be seen, which will be possible during the trial only. Hence, the decision in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] shall be of no assistance to the accused in the present case. 13. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in Shiji [Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] , while quashing the 1 (2019) 5 SCC 688 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010443132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36244 CRL.P No. 9463 of 2026 FIR by observing that as the complainant has compromised with the accused, there is no possibility of recording a conviction, and/or the further trial would be an exercise in futility is concerned, we are of the opinion that the High Court has clearly erred in quashing the FIR on the aforesaid ground. It appears that the High Court has misread or misapplied the said decision to the facts of the cases on hand. The High Court ought to have appreciated that it is not in every case where the complainant has entered into a compromise with the accused, there may not be any conviction. Such observations are presumptive and many a time too early to opine. In a given case, it may happen that the prosecution still can prove the guilt by leading cogent evidence and examining the other witnesses and the relevant evidence/material, more particularly when the dispute is not a commercial transaction and/or of a civil nature and/or is not a private wrong. In Shiji [Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] , this Court found that the case had its origin in the civil dispute between the parties, which dispute was resolved by them and therefore this Court observed that: (SCC p. 713, para 19) “19. … that being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations … will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose.” In the aforesaid case, it was also further observed “that even the alleged two eyewitnesses, however, closely related to the complainant, were not supporting the prosecution version”, and to that this Court observed and held that the continuance of the proceedings is nothing but an empty formality and Section 482 CrPC can, in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the courts below. Even in the said decision, in para 18, it is observed as under: (Shiji case [Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] , SCC p. 713) “18. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 CrPC by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010443132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36244 CRL.P No. 9463 of 2026 sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.” Therefore, the said decision may be applicable in a case which has its origin in the civil dispute between the parties; the parties have resolved the dispute; that the offence is not against the society at large and/or the same may not have social impact; the dispute is a family/matrimonial dispute, etc. The aforesaid decision may not be applicable in a case where the offences alleged are very serious and grave offences, having a social impact like offences under Section 307 IPC. Therefore, without proper application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances, in our view, the High Court has materially erred in mechanically quashing the FIR, by observing that in view of the compromise, there are no chances of recording conviction and/or the further trial would be an exercise in futility. The High Court has mechanically considered the aforesaid decision of this Court in Shiji [Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] , without considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Now so far as the conflict between the decisions of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] and Shambhu Kewat [State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 781] is concerned, in Shambhu Kewat [State of - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010443132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36244 CRL.P No. 9463 of 2026 Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 781] , this Court has noted the difference between the power of compounding of offences conferred on a court under Section 320 CrPC and the powers conferred under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court. In the said decision, this Court further observed that in compounding the offences, the power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 CrPC and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby, while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing criminal proceedings or criminal complaint under Section 482 CrPC is guided by the material on record as to whether ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, although ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. However, in the subsequent decision in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] , the very Bench ultimately concluded in para 29 as under: (SCC pp. 482-84) “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 - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010443132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36244 CRL.P No. 9463 of 2026 (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. 29.3. Such a power is not to 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 hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly 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 are 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/delicate 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 whether there - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010443132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36244 CRL.P No. 9463 of 2026 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 latter 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.” - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010443132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36244 CRL.P No. 9463 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 307 IPC 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 307 IPC 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 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 framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010443132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36244 CRL.P No. 9463 of 2026 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 in Narinder 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." 16. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC mechanically and even when the investigation was under progress. Somehow, the accused managed to enter into a compromise with the complainant and sought quashing of the FIR on the basis of a settlement. The allegations are serious in nature. He used the firearm also in commission of the offence. Therefore, the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused is not at all considered by the High Court and solely on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the complainant, the High Court has mechanically quashed the FIR, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, which - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010443132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36244 CRL.P No. 9463 of 2026 is not sustainable in the eye of the law. The High Court has also failed to note the antecedents of the accused. 17. In view of the above and for the reasons stated, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 7-10-2013 passed by the High Court in Laxmi Narayan v. State of M.P. [Laxmi Narayan v. State of M.P., 2013 SCC OnLine MP 7987] is hereby quashed and set aside, and the FIR/investigation/criminal proceedings be proceeded against the accused, and they shall be dealt with, in accordance with law." 5. The Apex Court considers whether offence under section 307 could be accepted and closed on a compromise. The Apex Court holds that the injuries should be seen and injuries seen in the case at hand depict that they are simple in nature. 6. The injury sustained by the complainant is said to be simple in nature. Therefore, the wound certificate would depict that the injuries are simple in nature. 7. In that light, there would be no impediment for this Court to close the proceedings by accepting the settlement between the parties. - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010443132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36244 CRL.P No. 9463 of 2026 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is disposed. (ii) Proceedings in S.C.No.107/2025 (arising out of Crime No.75/2025), pending before Principal District and Sessions Court, Chikkaballapur, stands quashed, qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 78