- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010459872026 NC: 2026:KHC:36916 CRL.P No. 9931 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9931 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI MANIKANTA, S/O BYREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NAKKALAVARAPALLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 561212. 2. SHRI NAGESHA.B, S/O BYREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NAKKALAVARAPALLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA 561 212. PRESENT ADDRESS NO.96, WARD NO.22, PRASHANTHANAGARA, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DIST.-562 110. 3. SHRI RANJIT, S/O VENKATESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT YELHANKA, BENGALURU CITY, PRESENTLY R/AT C/O NARAYANASWAMY, NO. 198, 7TH MAIN, SECCOAL LAYOUT, SAHAKARANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 092. Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010459872026 NC: 2026:KHC:36916 CRL.P No. 9931 of 2026 4. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O LATE R.VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO. 30, TMC KATAN ROAD, BANGALORE 560 078. 5. SHRI PRAKASHSINGH KETHVAL, S/O PUSKARSINGH KETHVAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT RAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR NAGARJUNA COLLEGE, BANGALORE 560 066. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SUMATHI S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GUDIBANDE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, AMBEDKARA VEEDI, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001. 2. SHRI GANESHA, S/O SOMASHEKHARACHARI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, GARUDACHARLAHALLI VILLAGE, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA 561209. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI PRASHANTH K.S, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN SC.NO.15/2025 ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010459872026 NC: 2026:KHC:36916 CRL.P No. 9931 of 2026 CHIKKABALLAPURA FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 504, 143, 147, 149, 448, 307, 324 OF IPC VIDE ANNECURE-D IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED. 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 petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 5 are before this Court calling in question proceedings in S.C.No.15/2025, pending before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 448, 307 and 324 of the IPC. 2. Heard Smt. Sumathi S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Prashanth K.S., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: It is the allegation in the complaint that the petitioners barged into the house of the complainant and threaten with dire consequences, if the amount that was lent by the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010459872026 NC: 2026:KHC:36916 CRL.P No. 9931 of 2026 petitioners would not be returned. One of them attached with machete and caused injuries on the left hand and another accused assaulted in another machete on the right hand thumb. One them assault in the head of the complainant. Due to the aforesaid assault, the complainant sustained few injuries. The complainant made a hue and cry to get help and when neighbouring people approached the complainant, all the accused persons fled in a car. This becomes a crime in Crime No.51/2020, for the afore-quoted offences. Police after conduct of investigation file their final report – charge sheet in S.C.No.15/2025 before the concerned Court. 4. The issue is not with regard to the pendency of the merit of the matter. The parties to the lis are at the doors of this Court seeking permission to compound the offences, as they have entered into a settlement amongst themselves and an application under Sections 320(6) of the Cr.P.C., with supporting affidavits of the parties, the copies of which are appended to the petition. Learned counsel for the parties also produce a copy of the wound certificate of respondent No.2 – complainant to contend that the injuries suffered by the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010459872026 NC: 2026:KHC:36916 CRL.P No. 9931 of 2026 complainant is simple in nature and pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings. The application reads as under: “1. The petitioners have preferred the above petition being aggrieved by case rejected against them in Crime No. 0051/2020, chargesheet filed by the 1st respondent in CC No.215/2021 on file of Civil Judge and JMFC at Gudibande, whrein committal order is passed and record forwarded to I Addln. District and Sessions Court at Chikkaballapura and registered as SC No. 15/2025 for offences punishable under Section 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 448, 307, 324 of IPC. 2. The averments of the petition may kindly be read as part and parcel of this application. 3. It is submitted by the parties that all of them are known to each other with a view to have cordial relations, at the intervention of friends and well-wishers; the dispute is settled among them. In pursuance of the same, the 2nd respondent has withdrawn all the allegations made against the petitioners.” 5. The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose the closure of the petition on the score that the offences alleged is the one punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and in an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, the case should not be closed by way of settlement and the accused should come out clean in a full blown trial. 6. The issue that stands for consideration is whether this Court by exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010459872026 NC: 2026:KHC:36916 CRL.P No. 9931 of 2026 of the BNSS can permit the parties to compound and quash an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, which is heinous and non-compoundable in nature. 7. 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 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) 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? 1 (2025) 4 SCC 78 2 (2019) 5 SCC 688 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010459872026 NC: 2026:KHC:36916 CRL.P No. 9931 of 2026 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) “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 - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010459872026 NC: 2026:KHC:36916 CRL.P No. 9931 of 2026 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, 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) - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010459872026 NC: 2026:KHC:36916 CRL.P No. 9931 of 2026 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 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. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010459872026 NC: 2026:KHC:36916 CRL.P No. 9931 of 2026 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. 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: - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010459872026 NC: 2026:KHC:36916 CRL.P No. 9931 of 2026 “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.” 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 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466 - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010459872026 NC: 2026:KHC:36916 CRL.P No. 9931 of 2026 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 what parts of the body of the complainant is injured should be taken into consideration. The wound certificate in the case at hand indicates that the injuries inflicted are simple in nature. The wound certificate reads as under: - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010459872026 NC: 2026:KHC:36916 CRL.P No. 9931 of 2026 2) Cut lacerated wound seen (R) Thumb region 2*164 fatal bleeding seen. £À£Àß C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ°è I am of opinion that O. Note:- The above said injuries No. (1) and (2) are simple in nature. Sd/- ªÉÊzÁå¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæ UÀÄr§AqÉ” 8. 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 - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010459872026 NC: 2026:KHC:36916 CRL.P No. 9931 of 2026 application seeking compounding of the offences and close the proceedings against the petitioners/accused. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is disposed. (ii) The proceedings in S.C.No.15/2025, pending before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, qua the petitioners stand quashed. I.A.No.1/2026 also stands disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 52