- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010502822026 NC: 2026:KHC:39040 CRL.P No. 10878 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10878 OF 2026 BETWEEN: MR. CHETHAN ALIAS CHETU, S/O CHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.137, KALAPPA BLOCK, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560050. CHARGESHEET ADDRESS #18, ALAMMA PRABHU ROAD, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE 560019. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE 560 001. 2. MR. VINAY S, S/O SHIVA SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 46, HARSHA CHAKRAVARTHY ROAD, CORPORATION QUARTERS, K G NAGAR, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA 560019. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. KISHORE R, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010502822026 NC: 2026:KHC:39040 CRL.P No. 10878 of 2026 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN SC.NO.1315/2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 323, 307 R/W 149 OF IPC, 1860, AS FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED REGISTERED BY KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR P.S., WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-63). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in S.C.No.1315/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC. 2. The petitioner is the accused No.5, who get embroiled in a crime, which arose out of the alleged assault of the complainant by the accused. It becomes a crime in Crime No.118/2019. After registration of the crime, the police file a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Since the - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010502822026 NC: 2026:KHC:39040 CRL.P No. 10878 of 2026 offence was the one punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, the matter is committed to the Court of Session and is presently pending as S.C.No.1315/2023. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings before the concerned Court, the parties to the lis have resolved the dispute amongst themselves and have drawn up certain terms of settlement and have filed their affidavits in that regard. The affidavit of the petitioner reads as follows: “JOINT AFFIDAVITS “I, Chethan, S/o Chandra, aged about 31 years, residing at #137, Kalappa block, Srinagar, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru Karnataka 560050, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 01. I affirm that, I am accused person in impugned crime. 02. I affirm that the complaint has been filed not against me but on the other accused. 03. I state that I have not committed any offence as alleged and the police has falsely implicated me in charge sheet. 04. At the intervention of elders, well-wishers of both parties the matter is settled amicably for the mutual benefit and advantage of both the parties the matter has been settled amicably. 05. I affirm that this compromise entered by us is voluntarily and willingly and that there is no fraud or - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010502822026 NC: 2026:KHC:39040 CRL.P No. 10878 of 2026 misrepresentation or compulsion or coercion or undue influence or threat played between them. There is also no collusion between us herein in entering into this compromise petition. 06. I affirm that I have read and explained contents of this Compromise, each one understood the Contents, terms of this compromise and have affixed our respective signatures to the same on being satisfied to the same. Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief." The affidavit of respondent No.2 reads as follows: “I, Vinay S, S/o Shiva Shankar, aged about 35 years, residing at No. 46, Harsha Chakravarthy Road, Corporation Quarters, K G Nagar Bengaluru 560019 do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 01. I affirm that, I am the complaint in the Impugned crime. 02. I affirm that I have filed a complaint on the other accused but not on this petitioner and I withdraw all the allegations if made against this petitioner. And this petitioner has not assaulted me. 03. At the intervention of elders, well-wishers of both parties the matter is settled amicably for the mutual benefit and advantage of both the parties the matter has been settled amicably. 04. I affirm that this compromise entered by us is voluntarily and willingly and that there is no fraud or misrepresentation or compulsion or coercion or undue influence or threat played between them. There is also no collusion between us herein in entering into this compromise petition. 05. We affirm that we have read and explained contents of this Compromise, each one understood the Contents, terms - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010502822026 NC: 2026:KHC:39040 CRL.P No. 10878 of 2026 of this compromise and have affixed our respective signatures to the same on being satisfied to the same. Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” 4. 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 it is met or whether it has been included for the sake of it. The judgment reads as follows: “20. The judgment 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? 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 1 (2025) 4 SCC 78 2 (2019) 5 SCC 688 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010502822026 NC: 2026:KHC:39040 CRL.P No. 10878 of 2026 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 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 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010502822026 NC: 2026:KHC:39040 CRL.P No. 10878 of 2026 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) 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) - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010502822026 NC: 2026:KHC:39040 CRL.P No. 10878 of 2026 “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. 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 - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010502822026 NC: 2026:KHC:39040 CRL.P No. 10878 of 2026 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: “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 - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010502822026 NC: 2026:KHC:39040 CRL.P No. 10878 of 2026 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) 5. The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment also 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 parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307 of the IPC as well. 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466 - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010502822026 NC: 2026:KHC:39040 CRL.P No. 10878 of 2026 6. The injury sustained by the complainant is said to be 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. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is disposed. (ii) Proceedings in S.C.No.1315/2023 pending before the LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (CCH-70), stands quashed, qua the petitioner-accused No.5. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 101