SHAHBAJ S/O MUKHTAR JAMADAR vs THE STATE BY MAHILA P S BELAGAVI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18080
CRL.P No. 102981 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184612026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102981 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SHAHBAJ S/O MUKHTAR JAMADAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: ELECTRICIAN,
ST
RESIDING AT: LEFT SIDE, 1 MAIN,
ST
1 CROSS, FATEH COLONY, AMAN NAGAR,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 590 016.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. WAQAR AHMED SHAHPURI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY MAHILA P.S, BELAGAVI
REPRESENTED BY
HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
OFFICE AT: DHARWAD HIGH COURT,
DHARWAD, KARNATAKA - 580 011.
2. SMT. MUSKAN W/O SHABAJ JAMADAR
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
RESIDING AT: AZAD NAGAR,
ND
2 CROSS, BELAGAVI.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. M.M.JAMADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
BNSS (U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.), PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE
FIR IN CRIME NO.84/2025 REGISTERED AT WOMEN P.S. BELAGAVI,
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 85, 115(2),
351(2), 352 OF BNS AND INITIATION OF IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.136/2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-II BELAGAVI, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18080
CRL.P No. 102981 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184612026
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTER, 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 of Cr.P.C./528 of
BNSS, 2023, by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the
entire proceedings in C.C.No.136/2026 in connection with
Crime No.84/2025 of Belagavi City Women Police Station,
pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-II,
Belagavi registered for the offences punishable under Sections
85, 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of BNS, 2023.
2. On the complaint of respondent No.2/defacto
complainant, the case came to be registered in Cr.No.84/2025
of Women Police Station, Belagavi against the
petitioner/accused for the aforesaid offences. The matter is now
pending trial before the trial Court. Hence, taking exception to
the same, the petitioner has sought to quash the entire
proceedings.
3. In view of the settlement arrived at between the
parties, today both the parties have filed I.A. No.1/2026 under
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18080
CRL.P No. 102981 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184612026
Section 359 of BNSS(320 Cr.P.C.) read with Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023(482 Cr.P.C.), for compounding the offences
alleged. The I.A. is filed by both the parties, signed by them
and their respective counsels.
4. Learned HCGP, respondent/the de-facto complainant,
petitioner/accused and their respective counsels are present.
5. The contents of the application-I.A.1/2026, affidavit of
petitioner and respondent No.2/de-facto complainant reads as
follows:-
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 359 OF
BNSS (320 CRPC) R/W 528 OF BNSS (482CRPC)
Herein the application on behalf of the
Petitioner and respondent no.2 is as under.
It is most respectfully submitted that, for the
reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, this
Hon'ble court may be please to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.136/2026 for the offences
punishable under sections 85, 115(1), 351(2), 352 of
BNS, arising out of FIR in Crime No.84/2025
registered at Women Police Station Belagavi.
Therefore, entire proceedings in C.C.No.136/2026,
may be quashed in the interest of justice and equity.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Shahbaj S/o Mukhtar Jamadar, Age: 33
years, Occ: Electrician, residing at left side, 1st main,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18080
CRL.P No. 102981 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184612026
1st cross, Fateh Colony, Aman Nagar, Tal & Dist-
Belagavi-590016, do hereby solemnly affirm and
state on oath as follows;
1. I state that, I am the Petitioner in above
captioned Criminal Petition and I am well acquainted
with the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. I state that, the above Petition has been
filed by the Petitioner, seeking quashing of impugned
proceedings in relation to C.C.No.136/2026 for the
offences punishable under sections 85, 115(1),
351(2), 352 of BNS, arising out of FIR in Crime
No.84/2025 registered at Women Police Station
Belagavi, by the Respondent No.2/De-facto
Complainant herein.
3. 1 state that during the pendency of the
above proceedings, the parties, namely the Petitioner
and the Respondent No.2/ De- Facto Complainant,
have amicably resolved and settled their disputes
and differences, which is the subject matter of above
proceedings.
4. I state that the settlement has been arrived
between the parties voluntarily, out of their own free
will and consent, without any pressure from any
person and now parties are not willing to contest the
matter.
5. I state that in pursuance of said settlement,
the Respondent No.2/ De-facto Complainant, shall
not have any objection to quash present petition and
all other cases between the parties pending if any as
of today, in terms of the settlement arrived at
between the parties.
6. I, therefore respectfully pray that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to consider the
settlement arrived by the parties and quash the
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18080
CRL.P No. 102981 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184612026
impugned proceedings in C.C.No.136/2026, pending
before the file of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate First
Class-II Belagavi, for the offences punishable under
sections 85, 115(1), 351(2), 352 of BNS, arising out
of FIR in Crime No.84/2025 registered at Women
Police Station Belagavi, to meet the ends of justice.
The contents of this affidavit are read over and
explained to me in Urdu and same are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Muskan W/o Shahbaj Jamadar, aged about
25 years, Occ: Housewife, resident of H.No.4803, 1st
Main, 1st Cross, Shivaji Nagar, Belagavi, Karnataka-
590010, today at Dharwad, do hereby solemnly
affirm and state on oath as follows;
1. I state that, I am the Respondent No.2/ De-
facto Complainant in above captioned Criminal
Petition and I am well acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of this case.
2. I state that, the above Petition has been
filed by the Petitioner, seeking quashing of impugned
proceedings in relation to C.C.No.136/2026 for the
offences punishable under sections 85, 115(1),
351(2), 352 of BNS, arising out of FIR in
Crime.No.84/2025 registered at Women Police
Station Belagavi, by me.
3. I state that during the pendency of the
above proceedings, the parties, namely the Petitioner
and the Respondent No.2/ De- Facto Complainant,
have amicably resolved and settled their disputes
and differences, which is the subject matter of above
proceedings.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18080
CRL.P No. 102981 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184612026
4. I state that the settlement has been arrived
between the parties voluntarily, out of their own free
will and consent, without any pressure from any
person and now parties are not willing to contest the
matter.
5. I state that in pursuance of said settlement,
I shall not have any objection to quash present
petition and any other cases between the parties
pending if any as of today.
6. I, therefore respectfully pray that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to consider the
settlement arrived by the parties and quash the
impugned proceedings in C.C.No.136/2026, pending
before the file of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate First
Class-II Belagavi, for the offences punishable under
sections 85, 115(1), 351(2), 352 of BNS, arising out
of FIR in Crime.No.84/2025 registered at Women
Police Station Belagavi, to meet the ends of justice.
The contents of this affidavit are read over and
explained to me in Urdu and same are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief.
6. Perused the complaint, FIR, IA and charge-sheet. The
allegations made in the charge-sheet discloses that there was a
family dispute between the de-facto complainant and the
accused, 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 petitioner is
not at all necessary and that would be nothing, but abuse of
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18080
CRL.P No. 102981 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184612026
process of law. Since the alleged offences are non-
compoundable in nature, petitioner/accused and respondent
No.2/de-facto complainant, pray to quash the 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.
7. 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.
8. 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
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18080
CRL.P No. 102981 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184612026
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
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18080
CRL.P No. 102981 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184612026
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 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
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18080
CRL.P No. 102981 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184612026
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, 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
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18080
CRL.P No. 102981 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184612026
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.
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
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18080
CRL.P No. 102981 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184612026
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."
9. 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/accused alleging that the petitioner after their
marriage, started quarrelling with the respondent/defacto
complainant over trivial matters and subjected her to mental
and physical harassment. Now that the petitioner and the
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18080
CRL.P No. 102981 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184612026
respondent No.2 defacto complainant have amicably resolved
and settled their disputes and differences, respondent No.2/de-
facto complainant 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 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, appears
to be very remote. Therefore, it would 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 petitioner/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
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18080
CRL.P No. 102981 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184612026
ratio laid down in the decision cited supra, it is necessary to
permit the parties to quash proceedings against the petitioner.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. The Criminal Petition is allowed .
2. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.136/2026 in
connection with Crime No.84/2025 of Belagavi City
Women Police Station, pending on the file of
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, Belagavi
registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023 are
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.: 2 Sl No.: 1