AMEEN ALIYAS AMEENSAB S/O RAJESAB JANGALSHET vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17576
CRL.P No. 102852 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184802026
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.102852 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. AMEEN @ AMEENSAB
S/O RAJESAB JANGALSHET,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: COOLIE WORK,
RESIDING OF: BHAGYA NAGAR,
RAMADURGA, TALUK: RAMADURGA,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI – 591 123.
2. SUBHANI S/O RAJESAAB JANGALSHET
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PAN SHOP BUSINESS,
RESIDING OF: BHAGYA NAGAR,
RAMADURGA, TALUK: RAMADURGA,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 591 123.
3. LALASAB S/O ISMAILSAB JANGALSHET,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: COOLIE WORK,
RESIDING OF: BHAGYA NAGAR,
RAMADURGA, TALUK: RAMADURGA,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 591 123.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ B. KARADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS RAMADURGA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17576
CRL.P No. 102852 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184802026
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 580 011.
2. GOPAL S/O TIMMAREDDI BANDIWADDAR,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER,
RESIDING OF: VADDAR ONI, RAMADURGA - 591 123.
TALUK: RAMADURGA, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
3. NANJUNDI S/O SABANNA BANDIWADAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MASON,
RESIDING OF: VADDAR ONI, RAMADURGA-591123,
TALUK: RAMADURGA, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
4. RAVI S/O NAGAPPA BANDIVADDAR,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MASON,
RESIDING OF: VADDAR ONI, RAMADURGA-591123.
TALUK: RAMADURGA, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
MISS. BUSHRA S. WARAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
BNSS (U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.) PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMPLAINT/FIR IN CRIME NO.178/2022 REGISTERED BY
RAMADURGA POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 504, AND 506
READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3(1)(R)(S),
3(2)(VA) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES ACT,
AMENDMENT ACT 2015, U/SEC. 3(2) OF PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES ACT 1989, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1-3
AND QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
ARISING THEREFROM IN SPL.C NO.5/2023 IN CRIME NO.178/2022
BY RAMADURGA POLICE STATION PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE III
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BELAGAVI FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S.143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 504,
AND 506 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 3(1)(R) 3(1)(S),
3(2)(VA), 3(2)(V) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
ACT, AMENDMENT ACT 2015, SO FAR AS PETITIONERS /ACCUSED
NO.1-3 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17576
CRL.P No. 102852 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184802026
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3
under section 482 to CrPC/528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking to
quash the entire proceedings in Special case No.5/2023 in
connection with Crime No. 178/2022 of Ramadurga Police
Station, pending on the file of learned III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Belagavi for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 504 and 506 read
with section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
and Section 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. On the complaint of respondent No.2, the case came
to be registered against the petitioners for the offences
punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307,
504, and 506 read with section 149 of IPC and under Section
3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Now
the matter is pending for trial. Hence taking exception to the
same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 have sought to quash
the proceedings.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17576
CRL.P No. 102852 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184802026
3. Today, both the parties have filed Memorandum of
Criminal Petition under Section 320(2) read with section 482
of CrPC for compounding of offence alleged. The Memorandum
of criminal petition is filed by both the parties signed by them
and their respective counsels. The defacto complainant, injured
persons(CW.6 and 7) and their respective counsels are present.
The contents of the memorandum of criminal petition and the
affidavit of both the parties reads as follows:
MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL PETITION UNDER
SECTION 320(2) R/W 482 OF C.R.P.C.
The Petitioners and respondent/complainant jointly
files the present Compromise petition.
1) The complainant/respondent No.2 had registered
a complaint as against the petitioners/accused no. 1
to 3 for the offence before Ramdurga Police Station
punishable under section U/s.143, 147, 148, 323,
324, 326, 307, 506, 504 R/W 149 of IPC, and U/S.
3(1)(r)(s),3(2)(va) of SC and ST (Prevention of
Attrocities) Act, 1989 U/s 3(2) (V) and the
prosecution had submitted a charge sheet for the
alleged offences, punishable U/s.143, 147, 148, 323,
324, 307, 506, 504 R/W 149 of IPC and U/s 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Hence the petitioners has
presented this petition for quashing of the
proceedings in Spl.C. No:5/2023 pending on the file
of Hon'ble 3rd Addl. District and Sessions Court,
Belagavi.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17576
CRL.P No. 102852 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184802026
2) The Petitioners and Respondent No.2 to 4 are
residents of Ramadurga Town and are known to each
other. The present proceedings have arisen out of an
alleged incident said to have occurred on 09/10/2022
at about 3.10 p.m. near Basavanna
Temple/Basaveshwara Temple, Gandhi Nagar,
Ramadurga, within the jurisdiction of Ramadurga
Police Station.
3) It is submitted that Respondent No.2 i.e., Gopal
S/o Timmareddi Bandiwaddar is the complainant in
the present case and Respondent Nos.3 and 4
namely Nanjundi S/o Sabanna Bandiwaddar and Ravi
S/o Nagappa Bandiwaddar are stated to be
accompanying him and are also shown as injured
persons in the prosecution case.
4) It is submitted that, as per the allegations made
in the Complaint, on 09/10/2022, Respondent No.2
along with Respondent Nos.3 and 4 was travelling in
an Ashok Leyland goods vehicle bearing Registration
No.KA-26-A- 5721 and when they were near
Anugraha Hotel, an altercation took place between
the complainant-side persons and Petitioner
No.1/Ameen @ Ameensab.
5) It is further submitted that, as per the allegations
of the complainant, after the said altercation
Petitioner No.1 went away from the place and
thereafter, at about 3.10 p.m., the Petitioners along
with other persons allegedly came near the
Basavanna Temple/Basaveshwara Temple open
space and allegedly assaulted Respondent No.2 and
Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
6) It is alleged in the Complaint that the Petitioners
and other persons abused the complainant-side
persons and assaulted them by using an iron rod,
knife and brick piece and that the complainant-side
persons sustained injuries in the alleged Incident. It
Is further alleged that the Petitioners threatened the
complainant-side persons with dire consequences.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17576
CRL.P No. 102852 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184802026
7) Further it is submitted that in the intervention of
the elders both petitioners and respondents are
ready to compromise, hence the petitioners and
respondents jointly submits the present compromise
petition.
8) It is further submitted that the petitioners and
respondents states that if the compromise petition is
allowed there is no hardship nor injustice causes to
other side. The contents of the entire compromise
petition was read over and explained us in our
vernacular language and contents were understood
and the present compromise petition and the above
compromise petition is filed wilfully without any force
nor any undue advantage nor it is not violates the
rights of the parties. And the above compromise
petition explained in detail and we had gone through
the same and they are correct to the best of our
knowledge.
Wherefore the petitioners and the respondents most
respectfully prays that this Hon'ble court may be
pleased to allow the Compromise Petition and
consequently request to quash all the proceedings in
Spl.C. No:5/2023 pending on the file of Hon'ble 3rd
Addl. District and Sessions Court, Belagavi for the
offence punishable U/s.143, 147, 148, 323, 324,
307, 506, 504 R/W 149 of IPC and U/s 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in the interest of justice and
equity.
AFFIDAVIT
I. Sri. Ameensab S/o. Rajesaab Jangalshet, Age:23,
Years, Occ: Panshop cooli work, R/o, Bhagya Nagar Tq:
Ramadurga, Dt: Belagavi, today at Dharwad, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
1) I am the petitioner no.1/Accused no.1 in the above
petition, and I know the fact and circumstance of the
case. Hence, I am competent to swear this Affidavit.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17576
CRL.P No. 102852 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184802026
2) The statement made in the para 1 to 8 of the
Compromise petition and accompanying of this affidavit
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. And it
is not by undue advantage nor any force nor by any
influence and I willfully filed the present compromise
petition. Hence this affidavit.
AFFIDAVIT
I. Sri.Subhani S/o.Rajesaab Jangalshet, Age:28, Years,
Occ: Panshop cooli work, R/o, Bhagya Nagar Tq:
Ramadurga, Dt: Belagavi, today at Dharwad, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
1) I am the petitioner no.2/Accused no.2 in the above
petition, and I know the fact and circumstance of the
case. Hence, I am competent to swear this Affidavit.
2) The statement made in the para 1 to 8 of the
Compromise petition and accompanying of this affidavit
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. And it
is not by undue advantage nor any force nor by any
influence and I willfully filed the present compromise
petition. Hence this affidavit.
AFFIDAVIT
I. Sri.lalasab S/o.Ismailsab Jangalshet, Age:37 Years,
Occ:labour, R/o, Bhagya Nagar Tq: Ramadurga, Dt:
Belagavi, Today at Dharwad, do hereby solemnly affirm
and state on oath as follows:
1) I am the petitioner no.3/Accused no.3 in the above
petition, and I know the fact and circumstance of the
case. Hence, I am competent to swear this Affidavit.
2) The statement made in the para 1 to 8 of the
Compromise petition and accompanying of this affidavit
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. And it
is not by undue advantage nor any force nor by any
influence and I willfully filed the present compromise
petition. Hence this affidavit.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17576
CRL.P No. 102852 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184802026
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sri.Gopal S/o.Timmareddi Bandiwaddar Age:22 Years,
Occ:labour, R/o.Vaddaroni,Tq: Ramadurga, Dt: Belagavi,
Today at Dharwad, do hereby solemnly affirm and state
on oath as follows: at
1) I am the Complainant/Respondent no.2 in the above
Criminal petition, and I know the fact and circumstance of
the case. Hence, I am competent to swear this Affidavit.
2) The statement made in the para 1 to 8 of the
Compromise petition and accompanying of this affidavit
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. And it
is not by undue advantage nor any force nor by any
influence and I willfully filed the present compromise
petition. Hence this affidavit.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sri. Nandunji S/o.Sabanna Bandiwaddar, Age:28 Years,
Occ:Mason, R/o.Vaddar Oni, Tq: Ramdurga Dt:Belagavi,
Today, at Dharwad, do hereby solemnly affirm and state
on oath as follows:
1) I am the Respondent no.3 in the above Criminal
petition, and I know the fact and circumstance of the
case. Hence, I am competent to swear this Affidavit.
2) The statement made in the para 1 to 8 of the
Compromise petition and accompanying of this affidavit
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. And it
is not by undue advantage nor any force nor by any
influence and I willfully filed the present compromise
petition. Hence this affidavit.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sri.Ravi S/o.Nagappa Bandiwaddar, Age:22 Years,
Occ:Mason, R/o.Vaddar Oni, Tq: Ramdurga Dt: Belagavi,
Today at Dharwad, do hereby solemnly affirm and state
on oath as follows:
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17576
CRL.P No. 102852 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184802026
1) I am the Respondent no.4 in the above know the fact
and circumstance of the case. Hence, I am competent to
swear this Affidavit.
2) The statement made in the para 1 to 8 of the
Compromise petition and accompanying of this affidavit
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. And it
is not by undue advantage nor any force nor by any
influence and I willfully filed the present compromise
petition. Hence this affidavit.
3. Perused the entire charge sheet. The allegations made in
the complaint shows that there was dispute between the
complainant and the accused persons and the same is settled
as per the advice of the elders of both families without any
compulsion or coercion. Therefore, continuation of the
prosecution against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 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 and the defacto complainant, CW.Nos.6
and 7 agreed 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 Cr.P.C to
quash the entire proceedings.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17576
CRL.P No. 102852 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184802026
4. 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 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,
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17576
CRL.P No. 102852 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184802026
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.
(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
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17576
CRL.P No. 102852 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184802026
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 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
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17576
CRL.P No. 102852 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184802026
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.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17576
CRL.P No. 102852 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184802026
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
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17576
CRL.P No. 102852 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184802026
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."
.
5 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 petitioners
alleging that on 09.10.2022, respondent No.2 alongwith
respondent Nos.2 and 3 were travelling in an Ashok Leyland
Goods vehicle and when they went near Anugraha Hotel, an
altercation took place between the complainant-side persons
and petitioner No.1 and thereafter at about 3.10 p.m., the
petitioners alongwith other persons allegedly went near
Basavanna Temple and assaulted respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4
using an iron rod, knife and brick and they sustained injuries.
The petitioners also threatened the complainant with dire
consequences. Now that in order to maintain good cordial
relationship between the petitioners/accused and the
complainant and respondent Nos.2 and 3-injured, respondent
No.2 is intending to take back the case registered against the
petitioners. In this context, the Court finds that, the parties
have settled their disputes. This becomes an important
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17576
CRL.P No. 102852 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184802026
consideration. In view of the compromise held between the
parties, further investigation of the case would not arise and if
the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed
by the investigating officer 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, appears 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 proceedings initiated against the
petitioners/accused is liable to be quashed.
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, it is just and necessary to
permit the parties to quash the proceedings.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The criminal petition is allowed .
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17576
CRL.P No. 102852 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184802026
2. The entire proceedings in Special case No.5/2023 in
connection with Crime No. 178/2022 of Ramdurga
Police station, pending on the file of learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi for
the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 504, and 506 read with
section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(r)(s),
3(2)(va) and Section 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, is hereby quashed insofar as
the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 is concerned.
3. The memorandum of compromise petition is
allowed, accordingly.
Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of as they do not
survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MN /CT-SK
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1