SRI RUPESH AGARWAL, vs STATE BY BETAGERI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17432
CRL.P No. 102941 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196642026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102941 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RUPESH AGARWAL,
S/O. RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING OF: NO.202, SAIKUNJ,
TH TH
10 CROSS, 6 BLOCK,
ND
NAGARABHAVI, 2 STAGE,
VTC BENGALURU NORTH - 560 072,
2. SRI. KAMLESH AGARWAL,
S/O. LATE GENDA LAL AGARWAL,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING OF: LABARIYA GRAM,
LABARIYA DHAR DISTRICT,
MADHYA PRADESH - 454 111.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HARISH SHIRALAKOPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
AND:
1. STATE BY BETAGERI
EXTENTION POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT, DHARWAD,
DHARWAD - 580 011.
2.
SRI. VIKAS MUNAVALLI,
S/O. GANGADHAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17432
CRL.P No. 102941 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196642026
RESIDING OF: MULAGUND ROAD,
NEAR NOUKAR BHAVAN,
GADAG - 582 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. J.K.GURUBASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528
OF BNSS (U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.) PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2777/2026 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 318(2), 318(3), 318(4) READ
WITH 3(5) OF BNSS, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC-1 AT GADAG AND IN CRIME NO.35/2026 ON
THE FILE OF BETAGERI EXTENSION POLICE STATION GADAG,
IN SO FAR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 AND 2 ARE
CONCERNED.
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 by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and
2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking to
quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.2777/2026 pending on
the file of learned I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC-I, Gadag for the
offences under Sections 318(2), 318(3), 318(4) read with 3(5)
of BNSS, 2023.
.
2 Both the parties have filed IA.No.1/2026 under Section
359(2) of BNSS, 2023 for compounding of offences alleged. The
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17432
CRL.P No. 102941 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196642026
IA is filed by both the parties, signed by them and their
respective counsels.
3. Learned HCGP, the defacto complainant, petitioners/
accused Nos.1 and 2, and their respective counsels are present.
The contents of application and affidavits read as follows:
Application u/s 359(2) of BNSS
1. That the petitioners are arrayed as accused no.1
and 2 for the offences punishable u/s 318(2), 318(3),
318(4), r/w 3(5) of BNSS on the file of respondent
no.1 police station in crime no.35/2026 and in C.C. No.
2777/2026 and pending on the file of I Addl. Civil
Judge and JMFC-1 at Gadag and the respondent no.2
is the complainant who initiated the proceedings
against the petitioners.
2. That after investigation, the respondent no.1 filed
chargesheet in C.C. no.2777/2026 for the offences
punishable u/s 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), r/w 3(5) of
BNSS. And the same is pending on the file of I Addl.
Civil Judge and JMFC-1 at Gadag.
3. That during pendency of above said matter, with
the intervention of well wishers and family members,
the petitioners and the respondent no.2 have amicably
settled their disputes through mutual discussions and
have decided to resolve the matter peacefully.
4. That the amount of Rs.25,10,000/- has been
received by respondent no.2 and therefore the
respondent no.2 agrees to withdraw the allegations
alleged against the petitioners and further agree not to
prosecute them.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17432
CRL.P No. 102941 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196642026
5. That the compromise has been entered voluntarily
between the petitioners and respondent no.2 without
any force, threat, coercion or undo influence from any
person and therefore request the Hon'ble court to
record the compromise between them.
6. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 has no
future claims with regard to the transaction in the
above matter.
WHEREFORE, the petitioners and respondent No.2
pray before this Hon'ble Court to accept the
compromise entered between them and to quash the
chargesheet in C.C.No.2777/2026 for the offences
punishable u/s 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), r/w 3(5) of
BNSS, pending on the file of I Addl. Civil Jduge and
JMFC-I at Gadag and in crime No.35/2026 on the file
of Betageri Extension Police Station, Gadag in the
interest of justice.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sri. Rupesh Agarwal, S/o Radheshyam Agarwal,
aged about 43 years, R/o No.202, Saikunj, 10th
cross, 6th block, Nagarabhavi, 2nd stage, VTC
Bengaluru North-560072, Aadhaar no. 62215080767
today at Dharwad do hereby solemnly state on oath
as follows:
1. That I am the accused no.1 in C.C. no. 2777/2026
pending on the file of Learned I Addl. Civil Judge and
JMFC-1 at Gadag.
2. That, I am well aware of the facts and
circumstances of the case and hence I am swearing
this affidavit on behalf of petitioner no.2.
3. That the grounds urged in the main petition and IA
may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit to
avoid repetition.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17432
CRL.P No. 102941 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196642026
What is stated above is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
AFFIDAVIT
Sri. Kamlesh Agarwal, S/o Late Genda Lal Agarwal,
aged about 55 years, /o Labariya Gramm, Labariya
Dhar District, Madhya Pradesh-454111, adhaar no.
218625808511, today at Dharwad do hereby
solemnly state noath as follows:
1. That I am the accused no.2 in C.C. no. 2777/2026
pending on the file of Learned I Addl. Civil Judge and
JMFC-1 at Gadag.
2. That, I am well aware of the facts and
circumstances of the case and hence I am swearing
this affidavit.
3. That the paragraphs in the compromise petitions
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
What is stated above is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sri. Vikas Munavalli, S/o Gangadhar, aged about 29
years, R/o Mulagund road, Near Noukar Bhavan,
Gadag-582101, today at Dharwad do hereby solemnly
state on oath as follows:
1. That I am the respondent no.2/complainant in C.C.
no. 2777/2026 pending on the file of Learned I Addl.
Civil Judge and JMFC-1 at Gadag.
2. That, I am well aware of the facts and
circumstances of the case and hence I am swearing
this affidavit.
3. That the paragraphs in the compromise petitions
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17432
CRL.P No. 102941 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196642026
What is stated above is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
4. Perused the complaint, FIR, IA, and the charge sheet.
The allegations made in the complaint shows that there was a
dispute between the defacto complainant and the accused
persons, and the same is settled as per the advice of the elders
of both the 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
abuse of process of law. Since the alleged offences are non-
compoundable in nature, the petitioners/defacto complainant
pray 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. 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.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17432
CRL.P No. 102941 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196642026
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 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,
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17432
CRL.P No. 102941 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196642026
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
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17432
CRL.P No. 102941 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196642026
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
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17432
CRL.P No. 102941 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196642026
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.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17432
CRL.P No. 102941 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196642026
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
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17432
CRL.P No. 102941 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196642026
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. From the perusal of the aforesaid decision, facts and
circumstances and the material available on record, it appears
that respondent No.2 defacto complainant had filed the case
against the petitioners alleging that accused No.1 was known to
the complainant and they had a business transaction and as per
the directions of accused No.1, the complainant has transferred
a sum of Rs.25,10,000/- to accused No.2 towards the purchase
of wheat in the name of the complainant's company, however,
accused No.1 kept on postponing the delivery of goods. Hence,
the defacto complainant was constrained to lodge a complaint.
Now the petitioners and the 2nd respondent have amicably
settled the disputes and as respondent No.2/defacto
complainant has received the amount of Rs.25,10,000/-,
respondent No.2/defacto complainant now intend to
compromise the matter and, hence, 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
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17432
CRL.P No. 102941 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196642026
parties have settled their di\sputes. This becomes an important
consideration. In view of the compromise held between the
parties, further investigation of the case would not 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
ratio laid down in the decision cited supra, it is necessary to
permit the parties to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17432
CRL.P No. 102941 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196642026
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. The Criminal Petition is allowed .
[
2. The proceedings in C.C.No.2777/2026 pending on
the file of learned I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC-I,
Gadag for the offences under Sections 318(2),
318(3), 318(4) read with 3(5) of BNSS, 2023
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/-
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81