SHRI NAVEEN S/O. CHENNABASAPPA SANDRA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16972
CRL.P No. 102840 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020189502026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102840 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI NAVEEN
S/O. CHENNABASAPPA SANDRA,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. R.S. NO.264/2/4, PLOT NO.2,
SHRIRAM COLONY, MUTGA,
BELAGAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-591124.
2. SMT. INDIARA
W/O. CHENNABASAPPA SANDRA,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORKS,
R/O. R.S.NO.264/2/4, PLOT NO.2,
SHRIRAM COLONY, MUTGA, BELAGAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-591124.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
3. ARCHANA
D/O. CHENNABASAPPA SANDRA,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORKS,
R/O. R.S.NO.264/2/4, PLOT NO.2,
SHRIRAM COLONY,
MUTGA, BELAGAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-591124.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HARSHAWARDHANA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16972
CRL.P No. 102840 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020189502026
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY BAILAHONGAL PS, BELAGAVI,
R/BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH-580011.
2. SMT. PRIYANKA
W/O. NAVEEN SANDRA,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORKS,
MUTGA, BELAGAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-591124,
NOW AT BASAVANAGAR,
TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SACHCHIDANAND S. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.528 OF BNSS
(U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.), PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR
REGISTERED UNDER BAILAHONGAL P.S. BELAGAVI CRIME
NO.278/2026 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
BAILAHOGAL FOR THE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE U/S.85, 115(2), 352,
3(5) OF BNS AND U/S.3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT
AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3), IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16972
CRL.P No. 102840 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020189502026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned
HCGP for respondent- State and Sri Sachchidanand S.
Patil, learned counsel has filed vakalath for respondent
No.2.
2. This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023/Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners/accused
Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the entire proceedings in
Crime No.278/2026 of Bailhongal Police Station, Belagavi,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85,
115(2), 352, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [for
short, ‘the BNS, 2023’] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. On the complaint of respondent No.2 –
Smt.Priyanka w/o Naveen Sandra, the case came to be
registered in Crime No.278/2026 against the petitioners/
accused Nos.1 to 3 for the aforesaid offences. The matter
is now pending for investigation. Hence, taking exception
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16972
CRL.P No. 102840 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020189502026
to the same, the petitioners have sought to quash the
entire proceedings.
4. In view of the settlement arrived at between the
parties, today both the parties have filed I.A.No.2/2026
under Section 359 read with Section 528 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,
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and their respective
counsels are present. The contents of the I.A. and joint
affidavit read as follows:
Application U/Sec.359 R/W Sec.528 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita for compounding of the offences
“Herein the application on behalf of the
petitioners and Respondent No. 2 is as under:
1. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2
herein had lodged a complaint against the petitioners
for the offences punishable U/sec. 85, 115(2), 352
3(5) of BNS and U/s.3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act
on 21/08/2026 and the same was registered under
Bailahongal PS Crime No. 278/2026. Petitioners had
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16972
CRL.P No. 102840 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020189502026
approached this Hon'ble Court for quashing of the
said Complaint and FIR.
2. It is submitted that the dispute is civil in
nature as there was some misunderstanding between
the family of the petitioners regarding the marital
relation.
3. It is submitted that as per the elderly advice
the dispute between the petitioners family and the
respondent No. 2 is resolved. The petitioners and
respondent No. 2 have compromised the matter out
of the Court, further petitioner No. 1 and Respondent
No. 2 have agreed to take mutual consent Divorce
and have filed petition U/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage
Act and further agreed that petitioner No.1 will pay
Rs.26,00,000/- as permanent Alimony and the
respondent No. 2 has agreed to receive the same.
Hence the complainant is willing to compound the
offences and withdraw the complaint lodged against
the petitioners.
Therefore it is most humbly prayed before this
Hon'ble Court that the petitioners and respondent
No.2 be permitted to compound the offences and the
said complaint and FIR for the offences punishable
U/s.85, 115(2), 352, 3(5) of BNS and U/s.3 and 4 of
Dowry prohibition Act registered under Bailahongal
P.S. Crime No. 278/2026 be quashed in the interest
of Justice.”
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16972
CRL.P No. 102840 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020189502026
JOINT AFFIDAVIT
“Herein We 1) Shri. Naveen S/o Chennabasappa
Sandra, Age: 35 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.R.S.No.264/2/4 Plot No.2, Shriram Colony,
Mutga, Belagavi TQ and Dist: Belagavi-591124 2)
Smt. Priyanka W/o.Naveen Sandra, Age: 34 years
Occ: Household works, Mutga, Belagavi TQ and Dist:
Belagavi-591124, now at Basavanagar, Tq:
Bailahongal, Dist: Belagavi today Dharwad do hereby
state on solemn affirmation and make this affidavit
as under,
1) We state that, we the Petitioner No.01 and
respondent No.2 in the top noted petition. we know
the facts of the case. Hence we are swearing to this
affidavit on our behalf and on behalf of Petitioner No.
2 and 3.
2) We state that are compromising to resolve the
dispute between us. The contents of the compromise
application are read over to us in our vernacular
language and the contents of the said application are
best to our knowledge, information and belief. We
state that we are compromising without any fraud,
coercion, force or any undue influence.
Wherefore the accompanying application may
kindly be allowed in the interest of Justice.
Hence this affidavit.”
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16972
CRL.P No. 102840 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020189502026
5. Perused the complaint, FIR and I.A. The
allegations made in the complaint shows that there was a
dispute between the complainant and the accused and
same is settled as per the advice of the elders of both
family without any compulsion or coercion. Therefore,
continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners is
not at all necessary and that would be nothing but an
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.
6. 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
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16972
CRL.P No. 102840 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020189502026
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
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
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16972
CRL.P No. 102840 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020189502026
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.
(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
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16972
CRL.P No. 102840 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020189502026
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
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16972
CRL.P No. 102840 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020189502026
mentioned above. On the other hand, where the
prosecution evidence is almost complete 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
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16972
CRL.P No. 102840 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020189502026
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.
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
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16972
CRL.P No. 102840 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020189502026
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."
7 . On the perusal of the aforesaid decision,
judgment of co-ordinate bench and the facts and
circumstances and the material available on record, it
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16972
CRL.P No. 102840 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020189502026
appears that the second respondent had filed the case
against the petitioners with misconception of facts and in a
fit of anger. Now second respondent has realized his
mistake and he is intending to take back his case
registered against the petitioners on the advice of elders
of both the family as they are relatives. In this context,
the Court finds that, the elders of the village and their
family intervened in the matter and parties have settled
their disputes and have decided to live peacefully in
future. This becomes an important consideration. In view
of the compromise held between the parties, further
investigation of the case would not be arise, 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
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16972
CRL.P No. 102840 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020189502026
criminal proceedings initiated against the accused persons
are liable to be quashed.
8. Hence, the compromise petition is accepted. In
view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and
in view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions cited
supra, it is necessary to permit the parties to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners. Hence, the Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
The criminal petition is allowed .
The entire proceedings in Crime No.278/2026 of
Bailhongal Police Station, Belagavi, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 3(5)
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [for short, ‘the BNS,
2023’] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
pending on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge and
JMFC, Bailhongal, Belagavi District in so far as
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16972
CRL.P No. 102840 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020189502026
petitioners/accused No.1 to 3 are concerned, are hereby
quashed.
I.A.No.2/2026 is allowed accordingly.
Pending I.A.s, if any, stand disposed of as they do
not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
CLK /CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77