SRI GANAPATI S REVANKAR S/O SHANKAR REVANKAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17617
CRL.P No. 102281 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020159622026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102281 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SRI GANAPATI S. REVANKAR S/O. SHANKAR REVANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
LINGANKIPPA, YELLAPUR TALUK-581359,
UTTARA KANNADA.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,
THROUGH ITS KARWAR TOWN POLICE STATION,
DHARWAD-580011.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
2. TH UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE CO-OP
CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. KARWAR-581301,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI VIJAY M. MALALI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.
528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION
BY QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING INITIATED AGAINST
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IN C.C.NO.273/2016 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT KARWAR
AT KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17617
CRL.P No. 102281 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020159622026
SECTION 468, 471 420 OF IPC IN CRIME NO 93/2012 REGISTERED
BY KARWAR TOWN POLICE STATION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC/528 of BNSS,
2023 by the petitioner/accused No.2 seeking to quash the
entire proceedings in C.C.No.273/2016 in connection with
Crime No.96/2012 of Karwar Town Police Station, pending on
the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Karwar,
Uttar Kannada District, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. On the complaint of respondent No.2, the case
came to be registered in Crime No.93/2012 against the
petitioner and others for the aforesaid offences. Now the matter
is pending for trial before the Trial Court. Hence taking
exception to the same, the petitioner has filed this petition
seeking to quash the entire proceedings.
3. In view of the settlement arrived between the
parties, today both the parties have filed I.A.No.1/2026 under
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17617
CRL.P No. 102281 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020159622026
Section 320 of Cr.P.C./Section 359 of BNSS, 2023, for
compounding of offences alleged. The I.A. is filed by both the
parties, signed by them and their respective counsels. Learned
HCGP, de-facto complainant, petitioner/accused No.2 and their
respective counsels are present. Alongwith the compromise
petition, affidavit of the petitioner and the defacto complainant,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also filed authorization
letter issued by Secretary, Uttara Kannada District Government
Employees Co-operative Credit Society, Uttara Kannada,
wherein, the Society authorized the defacto complainant to
enter into compromise before the Court. The contents of the
application and affidavit reads as follows:
“COMPROMISE PETITION UNDER SECTION
320 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
(SEC 359 OF BNSS ACT 2023)
The Petitioner most respectively submits as under:-
1. The Petitioner is before this Hon'ble Court in the
present proceeding seeking quashing of entire
proceeding in C.C No.273/2016 pending on the file
of the Hon'ble Prl Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court
Karwar at Karwar, Uttara Kannada for offence
punishable under section 468, 471 420 of IPC in
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17617
CRL.P No. 102281 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020159622026
crime no.93/2012 registered by Karwar Town
police station.
2. It is submitted that the parties have settled the
matter between the amicably. The complaint is by
the Respondent no 2 Society alleging that between
the period of 09-12-2009 to 05-05-2010, the
accused No.1 and 2 being Government servants in
collusion with accused No.3 to 19 who are not
Government servants with an intention to cheat the
complainant society forged signatures of Head
Master and seal and made to believe forged
documents as genuine one and obtained loan of
Rs.23,34,410/- and did not repay the same and
cheated the complainant society and thereby
accused have committed aforesaid offences.
3. The Parties to the said compromise submits that
the accused no.1 died on 20-09-2022 and the
proceeding against accused no 1 are abated
against him and the amount which is to be
recovered from him cannot be made.
4. The parties to the compromise petition have
settled for Rs.11,00,000/- in total and the amount
is paid by the Petitioner/accused no 2 and same is
acknowledged by Respondent no 2. Hence on this
ground the entire preceding against the accused
no.2/ Petitioner should be set aside by this Hon'ble
Court.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17617
CRL.P No. 102281 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020159622026
5. I state that the Society Complainant have
acknowledged the settlement between the accused
no 2 and Society complainant and Society
complainant do not want to proceed with the
present proceedings for statically purpose. Hence
agreed to withdraw the compliant logged by the
Society against the accused No.2. Further the
complainant does not have wish to proceed in the
present complaint.
WHEREFORE it is prayed to this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to take compromise on record and
quash the proceeding in C.C.No.273/2016 pending
on the file of the Hon'ble Prl. Senior Civil Judge and
CJM Court, Karwar at Karwar, Uttara Kannada for
offence punishable under section 468, 471 420 of
IPC in crime no 93/2012 registered by Karwar
Town police station, in interest of justice and
equity.
AFFIDAVIT
I Shailendra M. Naik S/o. Madhukar V. Naik Aged
about 51 years, Occ Secretary of Uttara Kannada
District Government Employees Co-Operative
Credit Society Uttara Kannada, today at Dharwad
do hereby state on oath as under.
1. I State that the Petitioner is the present case
challenging the criminal proceeding initiated in C.C.
No 273/2016 pending on the file of Hon'ble Senior
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17617
CRL.P No. 102281 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020159622026
Civil Judge and CJM Court Karwar at Karwar for
offence punishable under section 468, 471, 420 of
IPC in crime no.93/2012 registered by Karwar
Town Police Station.
2. I state that I am the Secretary of Uttara
Kannada District Government Employees Co-
Operative Credit Society Uttara Kannada, have
given authorization to defend, sign the documents
related to the present case. The copy of
authorization letter is produced along with
vakalath.
3. I state that in the present case the settlement
memo is filed stating that the matter is settled
between the Petitioner and Respondent Society.
Hence I am Signing the present compromise
petition on behalf of Society as per the instruction
of the Board.
4. I state that, I am aware of the contents of the
Compromise petition and consequences, I am
signing the petition consciously.
Hence this Affidavit.”
4. Perused the complaint, FIR and I.A. It appears that
the allegations made in the complaint shows that the petitioner
and others misappropriated a sum of Rs.23,00,000/-. Now by
way of compromise, the petitioner/accused No.2 has deposited
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17617
CRL.P No. 102281 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020159622026
a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- to the society and remaining amount
is already deposited to the Society. The same is settled as per
the advice of the elders of both sides without any compulsion or
coercion. Therefore, continuation of the prosecution against the
petitioner/accused No.2 is not at all necessary and that would
be nothing, but abuse of process of law. Since the alleged
offences are non-compoundable in nature, the accused prayed
to quash the proceedings and permit to compound the
offences. As the matter is settled between the parties, it is just
and necessary to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the
entire proceedings.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder
Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr reported in (2014) 6
SCC 466 at Para Nos.31 to 35 has held as under:
"31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and
lay down the following principles by which the High Court
would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the
settlement between the parties and exercising its power
under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the
settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to
accept the settlement with direction to continue with the
criminal proceedings:
(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to
be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to
compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17617
CRL.P No. 102281 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020159622026
doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has
inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in
those cases which are not compoundable, where the
parties have settled the matter between themselves.
However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with
caution.
(II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on
that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is
filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an
opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those
prosecutions which involve 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. Similarly, for offences alleged
to have been committed under special statute 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.
(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions
or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes should be quashed when the parties have
resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to
examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases
would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal cases.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17617
CRL.P No. 102281 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020159622026
(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is
to be generally treated as crime against the society and
not against the individual alone. However, the High Court
would not rest its decision merely because there is a
mention of Section 307 IPC 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
307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has
collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead
to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. 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/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons
used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by
the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the
basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can
examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of
conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and
bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the
settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in
the later case it would be permissible for the High Court
to accept the plea compounding the offence based on
complete settlement between the parties. At this stage,
the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the
settlement between the parties is going to result in
harmony between them which may improve their future
relationship.
(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under
Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play
a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived
at immediately after the alleged commission of offence
and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court
may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the
criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the
reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and
even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those
cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet
to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High
Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers
favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the
circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other
hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17617
CRL.P No. 102281 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020159622026
or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at
the stage of argument, normally the High Court should
refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the
Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a
position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a
conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307
IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where
the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and
the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court,
mere compromise between the parties would not be a
ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the
offender who has already been convicted by the trial
court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and
conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and,
therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found
guilty of such a crime.
32. After having clarified the legal position in the manner
aforesaid, we proceed to discuss the case at hand.
33. In the present case, FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 was
registered under Sections 307, 324, 323, 34 IPC.
Investigation was completed, whereafter challan was
presented in the court against the petitioner herein.
Charges have also been framed; the case is at the stage
of recording of evidence. At this juncture, parties entered
into compromise on the basis of which petition under
Section 482 of the Code was filed by the petitioners
namely the accused persons for quashing of the criminal
proceedings under the said FIR. As per the copy of the
settlement which was annexed along with the petition, the
compromise took place between the parties on 12.7.2013
when respectable members of the Gram Panchayat held a
meeting under the Chairmanship of Sarpanch. It is stated
that on the intervention of the said persons/Panchayat,
both the parties were agreed for compromise and have
also decided to live with peace in future with each other.
It was argued that since the parties have decided to keep
harmony between the parties so that in future they are
able to live with peace and love and they are the
residents of the same village, the High Court should have
accepted the said compromise and quash the
proceedings.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17617
CRL.P No. 102281 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020159622026
34. We find from the impugned order that the sole reason
which weighed with the High Court in refusing to accept
the settlement between the parties was the nature of
injuries. If we go by that factor alone, normally we would
tend to agree with the High Court's approach. However,
as pointed out hereinafter, some other attendant and
inseparable circumstances also need to be kept in mind
which compel us to take a different view.
35. We have gone through the FIR as well which was
recorded on the basis of statement of the
complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the
complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused
persons because of some previous dispute between the
parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in
detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on
record viz., "respectable persons have been trying for a
compromise up till now, which could not be finalized".
This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there
have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid
purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In
this context when we find that the elders of the village,
including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the
parties have not only buried their hatchet but have
decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an
important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in
the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise
between parties, there is a minimal chance of the
witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution
case. Even though nature of injuries can still be
established by producing the doctor as witness who
conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to
prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of
conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would,
therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We,
taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively,
are of the opinion that the compromise between the
parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising
out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police
Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We
order accordingly."
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17617
CRL.P No. 102281 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020159622026
6 . On perusal of the aforesaid decision, facts and
circumstances and the material available on record, it appears
that respondent No.2 had filed the case against the petitioner
and others alleging that petitioner and others misappropriated
a sum of Rs.23,00,000/-. Now that the petitioner/accused No.2
has deposited a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- to the society and the
remaining amounts had already been deposited by the
petitioner, respondent No.2 is intending to take back the case
registered against the petitioner. In this context, the Court
finds that, the parties have settled their disputes. This becomes
an important consideration. In view of the compromise held
between the parties, further investigation of the case would not
arise and even at that juncture also, there is a minimal chance
of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution
case. Thus, the chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be
very remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these
proceedings. When the Court takes all these factors into
consideration cumulatively, the Court is of the opinion that the
compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17617
CRL.P No. 102281 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020159622026
proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.2 is
liable to be quashed.
7. Hence, the compromise petition is accepted. In view
of the settlement arrived between the parties and in view of the
ratio laid down in the above decision cited supra, it is necessary
to permit the parties to quash the proceedings against the
petitioner. Hence, the Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(I) The criminal petition is allowed .
(II) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.273/2016 in
connection with Crime No.93/2012 of Karwar
Town Police Station, pending on the file of
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM,
Karwar, Uttar Kannada District, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 468,
471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is
hereby quashed.
(III) I.A.No.1/2026 is allowed accordingly.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17617
CRL.P No. 102281 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020159622026
Pending I.A.s, if any, stand disposed of as they do not
survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
CLK/MN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36