- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6533 WP No. 12432 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 12432 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. DR. ANKIT P.BHOJANI S/O PRAKASH KUMAR T.BHOJANI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.52/47 64TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010. 2. MR. ANISH BHOJANI S/O PRAKASH KUMAR T.BHOJANI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.52/47, 64TH CROSS 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI AJAY KADKOL T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU - 560 010. Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6533 WP No. 12432 of 2025 2. SRI SANTOSH N., S/O NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.2, 2ND FLOOR SAMRUDDHI NILAYA 4TH BLOCK, 2ND MAIN SONNAPPA ROAD, GORAGUNTEPALYA BENGALURU - 560 022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI MADHAV B.KASHYAP, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH 528 OF THE BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND ALL FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE IN CRIME NO. 37 OF 2025 REGISTERED AT RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN WHO ARE ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.1 AND ACCUSED NO.3 FOR THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE WHICH IS MADE PENAL UNDER SECTION 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) OF THE SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 AND UNDER SECTION 506, 504, 384, 406 AND 420 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE –A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6533 WP No. 12432 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 3 are before this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings in registration of a crime in Crime No.37/2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Act’ for short) and under Sections 504, 506, 384, 406 and 420 of the IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2 in unison submit that during the pendency of the case, the parties to the lis have settled the dispute and file an interlocutory application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, along with an affidavit of the parties, seeking permission to compound the offences alleged by respondent No.2, the complainant. 3. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would contend that the issue in the lis concerning the offence ones punishable under the Act and therefore, settlement should not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6533 WP No. 12432 of 2025 be accepted. The petitioners have to undergo trial and come out clean. He seeks dismissal of the petition. 4. The affidavit of the parties, reads as follows: “4. The dispute between the Second Respondent and the Petitioner herein has been resolved amicably and as such all the other proceedings which were pending inter-se between the parties in respect of the charges mentioned in captioned petition have been laid a quietus to. 5. The Second Respondent does not wish to contest this matter any further in view of the amicable settlement having arrived at between the parties. 6. As such, the continuation of the proceedings before the Trial Court as against the Petitioner herein would tantamount to serious abuse of process of law. 7. In view of the amicable resolution of the dispute which has been arrived to between the Second Respondent and the Petitioner herein, the proceedings in Cr.No.37 of 2025 registered at Rajaji nagar Police Station, Bengaluru in CC.No.1141 of 2025 pending on the file of the LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-71), most respectfully pray the same may be quashed as against the petitioner herein, at the hands of this Hon’ble Court. We, therefore, request this Hon’ble Court to order the quashment of the proceedings in Cr.No.37 of 2025 registered at Rajaji nagar Police Station, Bengaluru in CC No.1141 of 2025 pending on the file of the LXX Addl. City Civil And Sessions Judge, (CCH71), as against the Petitioner herein, in which case he is arraigned as Accused, in the ends of justice.” 5. The issue is whether the compromise between the parties can be accepted by this Court qua the provisions of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6533 WP No. 12432 of 2025 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 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6533 WP No. 12432 of 2025 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: 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6533 WP No. 12432 of 2025 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. 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6533 WP No. 12432 of 2025 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 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 Crl.P.No.2349/2023 disposed on 21.04.2023. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to accept the application and the affidavit so filed and obliterate the proceedings for the offences punishable under the Act and also the offences ones punishable under Sections 506, 504, 384, 406 and 420 of the IPC, against the petitioners as the allegations are not against the State. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is disposed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6533 WP No. 12432 of 2025 (ii) The impugned crime in Crime No.37/2025, registered by the Rajajinagar Police Station, Bengaluru, stands quashed. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4 CT:SS