SHANTAVVA W/O MAHADEV KUSOJI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17330
CRL.P No. 101483 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020100342026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101483 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. SHANTAVVA W/O. MAHADEV KUSOJI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. KHANAPUR, TQ. DHARWAD,
DIST. DHARWAD-591302.
2. RATNAVVA W/O. SIDDARUDHA TAMBE,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. 01 MAIN ROAD, AMBOLI,
ARAVATAGI, TQ. & DIST. DHARWAD-580007.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
3. SADASHIV PARASHURAM KEROJI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. TADKOD, DIST. DHARWAD-581105.
4. PARASHURAM S/O. NAGAPPA KIROJI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. TADKOD, DIST. DHARWAD-581105.
5. MANJULA PARASHURAM KEROJI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17330
CRL.P No. 101483 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020100342026
R/O. TADKOD, DIST. DHARWAD-581105.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HANUMESH M. DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH GARAG RURAL POLICE STATION,
R/BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DHARWAD-580001.
2. SMT. MAHADEVI SHIVAJI HAIBATTI,
AGE: 45, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SHANTINAGAR ARIWAD VILLAGE,
TQ. HALIHAL, DIST. UTTARKANNADA-581356.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SHIVANAND DALAWAI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.528 OF BNSS (U/S.
482 OF CR.P.C), PRAYING TO QUASHED THE FIR AND CHARGESHEET
FILED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE DHARWAD
SPL.SC.NO.91/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.6, 17 OF
PROHIBITION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2012
AND U/SEC.9 AND 11 OF CHILD MARRIAGE RESTRAINT ACT AND
SECTION 376(3) OF THE IPC, BY ALLOWING THE PETITION, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.
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:17330
CRL.P No. 101483 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020100342026
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023
/ Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners/accused Nos.1
to 5 seeking to quash the entire proceedings in connection
with Crime No.179/2025 of Garag Police Station, Dharwad,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 6
and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012, Section 9 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act
and Sections 376, 376(3) and 498-A of Indian Penal Code,
pending on the file of learned Special Court II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in Special SC
No.91/2025.
2. On the complaint of respondent No.2 –
Smt.Mahadevi Shivaji Haibatti, the case came to be
registered in Crime No.179/2025 against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 for the aforesaid offences.
The matter is now pending for investigation. Hence,
taking exception to the same, the petitioners have sought
to quash the entire proceedings.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17330
CRL.P No. 101483 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020100342026
3. 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 5 and their respective
counsels are present. The contents of the application and
affidavits of respondent and petitioner reads as follows:
“APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 359 R/w 528
OF BNSS
That, for the reason stated in the accompanying
affidavit Hon'ble Court may kindly permit the parties
to compound the proceedings in Spl.case No.
91/2025 registered for offences punishable under
section 6,17 of Prohibition of Children from sexual
offences Act 2012 and under section 9 and 11 of the
Child marriage Restraint Act and Section 376(3) of
the IPC pending on the file of 2nd Addl. District and
Sessions Judge Dharwad & consequently quash the
entire proceedings., in the interest of justice.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Smt. Mahadevi W/o. Shivaji Haibatti, Age: 46
years, Occ: Household, R/o: Shantinagar Arlawad
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17330
CRL.P No. 101483 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020100342026
Village Tq: Halihal Dist: Uttara Kannada-581320,
today at Dharwad, do hereby solemnly affirm and
state on oath as follows:-
1. I am the respondent no-2/Complainant in the
above petitions, well conversant with facts of the
case and I am swearing to this affidavit.
2. That, the petitioners challenging entire proceeding
in Spl.case No-91/2025 registered for offences
punishable under section 6, 17 of Prohibition of
Children from sexual offences Act 2012 and under
section 9 and 11 of the Child marriage Restraint Act
and Section 376(3) of the IPC on the file of Hon'ble
2nd Addl, District and Session Judge Dharwad As
against the petitioner 1 to 5/ accused no-1 to 5. The
averments made in the petition may be read as part
& parcel of the above affidavit.
3. I submit that at the intervention of elders & well-
wishers the dispute has been resolved & myself and
Petitioner-1to 5/Accused no-1 to 5 has agreed to live
peacefully.
4. I submit that my daughter and Petitioner No. 3
are now she attended her majority and also the
petitioner no-3 attend his majority and now they
have voluntarily decided to lead their matrimonial life
together. And I am aware of their present
relationship and circumstances.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17330
CRL.P No. 101483 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020100342026
5. I submit that, having regard to the fact that my
daughter and Petitioner No. 3 are presently living
together as husband and wife and they have one
baby girl out of there wedlock, I have no personal
objection to the prayer made by the Petitioners
seeking quashing of the proceedings in Spl. Case No.
91/2025, subject to the consideration of this Hon'ble
Court in accordance with law.
6. I submit that due to misunderstandings between
the both families the present crime came to be
lodged. Now we have amicably settled the matter.
And my daughter and Petitioner No. 3 have
expressed their decision to continue their relationship
voluntarily. Having regard to their present
circumstances and the wishes expressed by my
daughter, I have no personal objection to this
Hon'ble Court considering the prayer made by the
Petitioners for quashing the proceedings, in
accordance with law.
7. I submitted that complainant/Respondent no 2
has no objection to quash the above proceedings as
against the petitioners.
8. I submit that we have entered in to the above
compromise without any coercion and undue
influence.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17330
CRL.P No. 101483 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020100342026
WHEREFORE, I most respectfully pray that this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the accompanying
application, in the interest of justice and equity.
AFFIDAVIT
I Sri. Sadashiv S/o Parashuram Keroji, Age 27 Yrs,
Occ:- Cooli R/o Tadakod Dist, Dharwad-581105
today at Dharwad, do hereby solemnly affirm and
state on oath as follows:-
1. I am the petitioner no- 3/Accused no,3 in above
Criminal Petition well conversant with facts of the
case and am authorized by other petitioners also, I
am swearing to this affidavit.
2. That, the petitioners challenging entire proceeding
in Spl. case No-91/2025 registered for offences
punishable under section 6, 17 of Prohibition of
Children from sexual offences Act 2012 and under
section 9 and 11 of the Child marriage Restraint Act
and Section 376(3) of the IPC on the file of Hon'ble
2nd Addl. District and Session Judge Dharwad As
against the petitioner 1 to 5/ accused no-1 to 5. The
averments made in the petition may be read as part
& parcel of the above affidavit.
3. I submit that at the intervention of elders & well-
wishers the dispute has been resolved the dispute
and complainant/ respondent no 2 have no objection
to quash the above proceedings against me and my
family members.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17330
CRL.P No. 101483 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020100342026
4. I Submitted that I under takes that I will take care
of my wife/victim and my minor child without any
harassment.
5. I submit that we both are presently residing
together and intend to lead our marital life
peacefully.
6. I submit that Respondent No. 2/Complainant,
being the mother of my wife, has expressed that she
has no personal objection to the prayer made in the
present Criminal Petition. In view of our present
matrimonial relationship and the circumstances
stated above, I respectfully request this Hon'ble
Court to consider the prayer for quashing the
proceedings in Spl. Case No. 91/2025,
7. I submit that we have entered in to the above
compromise without any coercion and undue
influence.
WHEREFORE, I most respectfully pray that this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the accompanying
application, in the interest of justice and equity.”
4. 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
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17330
CRL.P No. 101483 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020100342026
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.
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:
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17330
CRL.P No. 101483 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020100342026
(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 NC: 2023:KHC-
K:6872 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 NC: 2023:KHC-K:6872 the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17330
CRL.P No. 101483 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020100342026
(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 respect of injuries suffered by
the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17330
CRL.P No. 101483 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020100342026
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
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17330
CRL.P No. 101483 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020100342026
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
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17330
CRL.P No. 101483 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020100342026
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 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
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17330
CRL.P No. 101483 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020100342026
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."
6 . On perusal of the aforesaid decision, judgment of
co-ordinate bench and the facts and circumstances and
the material available on record, it 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
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17330
CRL.P No. 101483 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020100342026
and she is intending to take back her 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 and in case if
investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed, 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 proceedings initiated against the
accused persons are liable to be quashed.
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17330
CRL.P No. 101483 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020100342026
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 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 connection with Crime
No.179/2025 of Garag Police Station, Dharwad registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 6 and 17 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
Section 9 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act and Sections
376, 376(3) and 498-A of IPC, pending on the file of the
learned Special Court and II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Special SC No.91/2025, is
hereby quashed.
I.A.No.2/2026 is allowed accordingly.
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17330
CRL.P No. 101483 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020100342026
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.: 42