- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010368132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36339 CRL.P No. 7761 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7761 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI MOHAMMED NESLIN, S/O ABDUL SUDHIR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, 3RD FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, MUNESHWAR NAGAR, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU CITY-560 50. PERMANENT ADDRESS KUJIKANATTILLA HOUSE, CHULUR VILLAGE, KODANGULLUR TALUK, KERALA-680664. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NAUSHAD PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SUDDAGUNTEPALYA POLICE STATION, BANGALURU-560 029, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010368132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36339 CRL.P No. 7761 of 2026 2. SRI AKSHAY KUMAR, S/O AMITH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.66, 5TH CROSS, RHCS LAYOUT, ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT, NAGARABAVI, BDA COMPLEX, BENGALURU 560 072. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R-1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.157/2023 VIDE SPL.C.NO.2226/2023 OF SUDDAGUNTEPALYA POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-71), FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 324,326 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST ACT (POA) ACT 1989. 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 seeking quashment of a crime in Crime No.157/2023, pending before the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-71), for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of the IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Act’ for short). - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010368132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36339 CRL.P No. 7761 of 2026 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 in unison would submit that the parties to the lis have settled the dispute amongst themselves and therefore, they are before the Court seeking permission to compound the offences. They file an interlocutory application under Section 320(1) of the Cr.P.C. 3. The application reads as follows: “1. The petitioner submits that initially the respondent police have register the FIR against the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under section 324 of IPC 2. The petitioner submits that during the investigation the Investigating officer was able to collect some materials which attract the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC and Section 3(2) of SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 3. The petitioner submits that after completing the investigation the respondent police have filed the charge- sheet against the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under section 324, 326, of IPC and Section3(2) of SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 4. The petitioner submits that, by the intervention of elderly persons, relatives, friends and well wishers of petitioner and complainant in the above case have decided to settle the above case/dispute amicable and they amicably settle the dispute arose between them and decided to live happily in future. 5. The petitioner and complainant have colleague and working together at the same place, they settle the above - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010368132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36339 CRL.P No. 7761 of 2026 case/matter amicably amongst themselves voluntarily without any coercion, force, violation or undue influence in whatsoever manner .” 4. The issue is whether the compromise between the parties can be accepted by this Court qua the provisions of the Act. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter as the Apex Court in the case of RAMAWATAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 966, has held as follows: “15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper-castes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities. 16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010368132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36339 CRL.P No. 7761 of 2026 underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a ‘special statute’ would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C. 17. Adverting to the case in hand, we note that the present Appellant has been charged and convicted under the unamended Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act7, which was as follows: “3. Punishments for offences of atrocities- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— xxxx (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; xxxx” 18. We may hasten to add that in cases such as the present, the Courts ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that the complainant-victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will and not on account of any duress. It cannot be understated that since members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe belong to the weaker sections of our country, they are more prone to acts of coercion, and therefore ought to be accorded a higher level of protection. If the Courts find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief can be given to the accused party. What factors the Courts should consider, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 19. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in light of the afore-stated principles, as well as having meditated on the application for compromise, we are inclined to invoke the powers under Article 142 and quash the instant Criminal proceedings with the sole objective of doing complete justice between the parties before us. We say so for the reasons that: - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010368132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36339 CRL.P No. 7761 of 2026 Firstly, the very purpose behind Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST is to deter caste-based insults and intimidations when they are used with the intention of demeaning a victim on account of he/she belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. In the present case, the record manifests that there was an undeniable pre-existing civil dispute between the parties. The case of the Appellant, from the very beginning, has been that the alleged abuses were uttered solely on account of frustration and anger over the pending dispute. Thus, the genesis of the deprecated incident was the afore- stated civil/property dispute. Considering this aspect, we are of the opinion that it would not be incorrect to categorise the occurrence as one being overarchingly private in nature, having only subtle undertones of criminality, even though the provisions of a special statute have been attracted in the present case. Secondly, the offence in question, for which the Appellant has been convicted, does not appear to exhibit his mental depravity. The aim of the SC/ST Act is to protect members of the downtrodden classes from atrocious acts of the upper strata of the society. It appears to us that although the Appellant may not belong to the same caste as the Complainant, he too belongs to the relatively weaker/backward section of the society and is certainly not in any better economic or social position when compared to the victim. Despite the rampant prevalence of segregation in Indian villages whereby members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community are forced to restrict their quartes only to certain areas, it is seen that in the present case, the Appellant and the Complainant lived in adjoining houses. Therefore, keeping in mind the socio-economic status of the Appellant, we are of the opinion that the overriding objective of the SC/ST Act would not be overwhelmed if the present proceedings are quashed. Thirdly, the incident occurred way back in the year 1994. Nothing on record indicates that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward incident had transpired between the parties. The State Counsel has also not brought to our attention any other occurrence that would lead us to believe that the Appellant is either a repeat offender or is unremorseful about what transpired. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010368132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36339 CRL.P No. 7761 of 2026 Fourthly, the Complainant has, on her own free will, without any compulsion, entered into a compromise and wishes to drop the present criminal proceedings against the accused. Fifthly, given the nature of the offence, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellant had been concluded. Sixthly, the Appellant and the Complainant parties are residents of the same village and live in very close proximity to each other. We have no reason to doubt that the parties themselves have voluntarily settled their differences. Therefore, in order to avoid the revival of healed wounds, and to advance peace and harmony, it will be prudent to effectuate the present settlement.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court, which has held that invoking power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or under Section 528 of the BNSS, which was Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., earlier regime, the impugned crime registered under the provisions of the Act may be permitted to close, if the complainant is willing to settle the issue. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAMAWATAR (supra) is also followed by this Court in Crl.P.No.2588/2026, disposed on 27.04.2026, wherein, the impugned proceedings qua the petitioners therein, was quashed. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to accept the application and the affidavits so filed and obliterate the crime - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010368132026 NC: 2026:KHC:36339 CRL.P No. 7761 of 2026 for the offences punishable under the Act and also the offences punishable under the provisions of the BNS / IPC, the earlier regime, against the petitioner as the allegations are not against the State. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is disposed. (ii) The impugned crime in Crime No.157/2023, pending before the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-71), qua the petitioner, stand quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 89