- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010515762026 NC: 2026:KHC:40250 CRL.P No. 11295 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11295 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. MANJUNATHA R S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.419 11TH MAIN ROAD 4TH BLOCK, NEAR GANESH TEMPLE NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 096. 2. MANJUNATHA. R @MANJUNATH R GOWDA S/O T. RAJU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.36 9TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 096. 3. NAGARATHNA R W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.419 11TH MAIN ROAD NANDINI PUBLIC SCHOOL NEAR MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 096. Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010515762026 NC: 2026:KHC:40250 CRL.P No. 11295 of 2026 4. HARSHITH B.Y S/O YOGESH B A AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.115 1ST G MAIN ROAD J.S NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 096. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI: RAGHU N R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 01. 2. VANI. S W/O MANU. D AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.342, 5TH CROSS D GROUP, CHANDRA SHEKAR LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SMT: G N GOWRAMMA, ADV FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED UNDER SECTION 528 BNNS) BY THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE INVESTIGATION INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN THEIR CRIME NO.218/2026 ON THE FILE OF THE CCH 71 CITY COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE CITY BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010515762026 NC: 2026:KHC:40250 CRL.P No. 11295 of 2026 PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(2)(v-a) OF SC AND ST ACT AND SECTIONS 351(2), 352, 79 READ WITH 3(5) OF BNS. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Raghu N.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, Smt. Gowramma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record. 2. Petitioners – accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 are before this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crime No.218/2026, registered by the Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of the CCH-71, City Court Complex, Bangalore City, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 351(2), 352, 79 r/w 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Act’ for short). - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010515762026 NC: 2026:KHC:40250 CRL.P No. 11295 of 2026 3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties to the lis have settled the dispute among themselves and have filed a joint memo along with an joint affidavit seeking permission to compound the offences. The joint memo reads as follows: "JOINT MEMO" ." We. MANJUNATHA. R S/o Ramegowda, Aged about 42 years, Residing at No.419, 11th Main Road, 4th Block, Near Ganesh And 2. Temple, Nandini Layout, Bangalore MANJUNATHA. R @ MANJUNATH R GOWDA S/O T Raju, Aged about 28 years, Residing at No.36, 9th Cross, 4th Block, Nandini Layout, Bangalore 560 096. And 3. NAGARATHNA. R W/O Krishnappa, Aged about 38 years, Residing at No.419, 11th Main Road, NandiniPublic School, Near Mahalakshmi Layout, Nandini Layout, Bangalore-560 096. And 4. HARSHITH B.Y S/o Yogesh. B.A Aged about 27 years, Residing at No. 115, 1st G Main 560 096. AND Road, J.S Nagar, Nandini Layout, Bangalore VANI. S W/o Manu. D, aged about 29 years, R/at No.342, 5th Cross, D Group, Chandra Shekar Layout, Bangalore-Do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. We, state that the petitioner No.1 to 4 in the above case and No.2 is the respondent No.2 in the above case we conversant with the facts deposing as hereunder. 2. We further state that we have filed the joint memo, the contents of the joint from Para No.1 to 6 are true and correct. What is stated above is true and correct to the best of our knowledge belief and information." - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010515762026 NC: 2026:KHC:40250 CRL.P No. 11295 of 2026 4. They would also submit that this Court in Crl.P.No.2588/2026, disposed on 27.04.2026, has granted permission to compound the offences to the petitioners therein, who were the co-accused in the same case – Spl.C.No.1028/2024 and therefore, seek the relief to these petitioners. 5. 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. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010515762026 NC: 2026:KHC:40250 CRL.P No. 11295 of 2026 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 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 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010515762026 NC: 2026:KHC:40250 CRL.P No. 11295 of 2026 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: 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 - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010515762026 NC: 2026:KHC:40250 CRL.P No. 11295 of 2026 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. 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) 6. 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 482 of the Cr.P.C., the proceedings initiated under 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 - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010515762026 NC: 2026:KHC:40250 CRL.P No. 11295 of 2026 Crl.P.No.2588/2026, disposed on 27.04.2026, wherein, the impugned proceedings qua the petitioners therein, was quashed. 7. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to accept the joint memo and the joint affidavit so filed and obliterate the proceedings for the offences punishable under the Act and also the offences punishable under the provisions of the BNS, against the petitioners as the allegations are not against the State. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is disposed. (ii) Impugned investigation in Crime No.218/2026 registered by the Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police Station, Bangalore, stands quashed qua the petitioners. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE HR-List No.: 4 Sl No.: 14