JUNJAPPA S/O. UDACHAPPA YALAGACHCHA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16908
CRL.P No. 102991 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020161652024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102991 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. JUNJAPPA S/O UDACHAPPA YALAGACHCHA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: COOLIE,
2. SMT. LAXMAVVA W/O. JUNJAPPA YALAGACHCHA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: COOLIE,
BOTH ARE RESIDING OF:
HESARUR VILLAGE,
TALUK: SAVANUR,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. N.P.VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH BUILDING,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16908
CRL.P No. 102991 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020161652024
DHARWAD - 580 011,
THROUGH SAVANOOR P.S.
2. SMT. LALITAVVA W/O. SHEKHAPPA LAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: COOLIE,
RESIDING OF: HESARUR VILLAGE,
TALUK: SAVANUR,
DISTRICT: HAVERI - 581 205.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. K.H.BAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2
IN SPL.SC/ST NO.41/2024 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 323, 354, 448, 380, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF
IPC AND U/S 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST(PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2015 PENDING BEFORE THE
COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, HAVERI, IN CRIME NO.92/2024 REGISTERED
IN SAVANOOR POLICE STATION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16908
CRL.P No. 102991 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020161652024
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 528
of BNSS, 2023 / 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire
proceedings in Special Case SC/ST No.41/2024 pending on the
file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge and
Special Court, Haveri, registered for the offence under
Sections 323, 354, 448, 380, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and
under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST(Prevention of
Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
2. In view of the settlement arrived at between the
parties, today, the petitioners, learned HCGP and defacto
complainant and their respective counsels are present. The
parties have filed an application-I.A.No.1/2026 under Section
482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS praying permission to compound the
offences. The contents of the compromise petition and the
affidavit of the petitioners and defacto complainant are as
under:
APPLICATION UNDER SEC. 482 OF Cr.P.C. (SEC. 528
OF B.N.S.S. ACT)
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16908
CRL.P No. 102991 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020161652024
The above named parties state as follows:
1. The 2nd respondent has lodged a complaint against
petitioner for offences punishable U/Sec 323, 354, 448,
380, 504, 506 R/W Sec. 34 of I.P.C., Sec. 3(1)(r) and
Sec.3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PA) Act 2015. The Police have
submitted a charge sheet for offences punishable U/Sec.
323, 354, 448, 380, 504, 506 R/W Sec. 34 of I.P.C., Sec.
3(1)(r) and Sec.3(2) (va) of SC/ST (PA) Act 2015.
2. The 2nd respondent lodged a complaint against the
petitioner for the said offences as regarding some money
transactions between them as 1st petitioner failed to
adhere to the terms of the mediation. Now their dispute
was also resolved through the mediation of elders in the
village again to keep harmony in the village and the
petitioner and respondent no. 2 know each other and they
were helped each other during difficult times.
3. So the petitioners and 2nd respondent have realized
that continuing the case will create more problems than
resolving their dispute as per the mediation held by elders
of the village. The 2nd respondent is not interested to
continue the case in view of mediation of the elders of the
village to live in harmony.
4. The parties submit that they are submitting this petition
understanding the contents of it and without anybody's
coercion or threat. They are submitting this petition
voluntarily with free will understanding the contents of this
petition through their advocates.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16908
CRL.P No. 102991 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020161652024
Wherefore it is humbly prayed that the Honorable Court
may please to quash the proceedings in Spl. SC/ST
No.41/2024 for offences punishable under Sec. 323, 354,
448, 380, 504, 506, R/W Sec. 34 of I.P.C. and U/Sec.
3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act 2015 pending before the Court of The I
Addl. District And Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Haveri, in the interest of justice.
AFFIDAVIT
I Junjappa S/o Udachappa Yalagach, Age: 28 years, Occ:
Coolie R/o Hesarur village, Tq. Savanur, Dist. Haveri today
at Dharwad do hereby state on solemn affirmation as
under:-
1. I am 1st petitioner in this petition and know the facts of
it and hence I am swearing to this affidavit. 2nd petitioner
is my wife.
2. On the advice of elders and well wishers in the village
we have realised continuing the case will create more
problem and futility of the litigation and to live in harmony
we have resolved our disputes and not interested to
continue the litigation/case. We have resolved our disputes
without any compulsion, coercion or threat but on our free
will to end the litigation and to live in harmony.
Wherefore I humbly pray the Honorable Court to grant the
relief as prayed for in the application in the interest of
justice.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16908
CRL.P No. 102991 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020161652024
AFFIDAVIT
1 Smt. Laxmavva W/o Junjappa Yalagach, Age: 28 years,
Occ: Coolie R/o Hesarur village, Tq. Savanur, Dist.
Haveri today at Dharwad do hereby state on solemn
affirmation as under:-
1. 1 am 2nd petitioner in this petition and know the facts
of it and hence I am swearing to this affidavit. 1
petitioner is my husband.
2. On the advice of elders and well wishers in the village
we have realised continuing the case will create more
problem and futility of the litigation and to live in
harmony we have resolved our disputes and not
interested to continue the litigation / case. We have
resolved our disputes without any compulsion, coercion
or threat but on our free will to end the litigation and to
live in harmony.
Wherefore I humbly pray the Honorable Court to grant
the relief as prayed for in the application in the interest
of justice.
AFFIDAVIT
I Smt. Lalitavva W/o Shekappa Lamani, Age: 40 years,
Occ: Coolie R/o Hesarur village, Tq. Savanur, Dist.
Haveri today at Dharwad do hereby state on solemn
affirmation as under:-
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16908
CRL.P No. 102991 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020161652024
1. I am 2nd respondent in this petition and know the
facts of it and hence I am swearing to this affidavit.
2. On the advice of elders and well wishers in the village
we have realised continuing the case will create more
problem and futility of the litigation and to live in
harmony we have resolved our disputes and not
interested to continue the litigation / case. We have
resolved our disputes without any compulsion, coercion
or threat but on our free will to end the litigation and to
live in harmony.
Wherefore I humbly pray the Honorable Court to grant
the relief as prayed for in the application in the interest
of justice.
3. Perused the entire charge-sheet material. The
allegations made in the charge-sheet discloses that there was a
dispute between the de-facto complainant and the accused
persons, and they have settled the matter as per the advice of
the elders of both families without any compulsion or coercion.
Therefore, continuation of prosecution against the petitioners 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, petitioners/accused persons,
respondent No.2-de-facto complainant, pray to quash the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16908
CRL.P No. 102991 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020161652024
proceedings and permit them 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.
4. Since the parties have settled the matter between
themselves, the chances of conviction is very remote, and
therefore, it would be unnecessary to drag the 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
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
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16908
CRL.P No. 102991 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020161652024
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.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16908
CRL.P No. 102991 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020161652024
(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 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
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16908
CRL.P No. 102991 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020161652024
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 by the trial court and
the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court,
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16908
CRL.P No. 102991 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020161652024
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
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16908
CRL.P No. 102991 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020161652024
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 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
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16908
CRL.P No. 102991 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020161652024
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."
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 petitioners
alleging that the petitioners were constructing a house and as
they were in need of money, they approached the complainant
for financial help and borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from
her. However, even after one year, as the petitioners did not
repay the amount to respondent No.2, the defacto complainant
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16908
CRL.P No. 102991 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020161652024
was constrained to lodge a complaint. Now that the petitioners
and respondent No.2-defacto complainant being residents of
same village and close neighbours and with the intervention of
village elders and in order to maintain peace and harmony in
the village, respondent No.2/de-facto complainant 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 consideration. In view of
the compromise held between the parties, further investigation
of the case would not be 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, 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
settlement arrived at between the parties and in view of the
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16908
CRL.P No. 102991 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020161652024
ratio laid down in the decision cited supra, it is necessary to
permit the parties to quash proceedings against the petitioners.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. The Criminal Petition is allowed .
2. The entire proceedings in Special Case SC/ST
No.41/2024 pending on the file of learned I
Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special
Court, Haveri, for the offence under Sections 323,
354, 448, 380, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and
under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,
2015, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2
is hereby quashed.
3. I.A. No.1 of 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
MN /CT-SK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84