SHASHI ALIAS SHASHIKUMAR S/O BASAYYA HIREMATH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17131
CRL.P No. 102878 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020189872026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102878 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:

SHASHI @ SHASHIKUMAR S/O. BASAYYA HIREMATH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MULATALLI VILLAGE, TALUK: HANGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI - 581 148.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH V. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HUBLI DHARWAD CEN POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

2. MANJULA W/O KHEEMAPPA RATHOD
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: PROFESSOR,
R/O: PLOT NO.4, DANESHWARI COLONY, BEHIND
GOVT PU COLLEGE, GOPANAKOPPA HUBBALLI,
DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580 023.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MARUTI A HANDINAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.528 OF BNSS (U/S482
OF CR.P.C.) PRAYING TO ADMIT THE PETITION, CALL FOR RECOTDS
AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR, COMPLAINT AND CHARGESHEET
VIDE ANNEXURE-A, B AND C FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 66(E), 67, 67(A), OF IT ACT AND U/S.78
(2) OF BNS AND U/S.3(2)(V-A) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT. 1989, AND
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN SPL. SC/ST NO.38/2025 ON THE FILE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS/ SPECIAL COURT DHARWAD
VIDE ANNEXURE-D, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTER, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:












Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17131
CRL.P No. 102878 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020189872026


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL ORDER

Sri. Maruti A. Hadinamani, learned counsel appears for
respondent No.2-complainant.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under
section 482 of Cr.P.C./ Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking to
quash the entire proceedings in Special SC/ST No.38/2025 in
connection with Crime No. 74/2025 of CEN Crime P.S, Hubballi
–Dharwad city pending on the file of learned II Additional
District & Sessions/Special Judge, Dharwad, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 66(E), 67, 67(A) of IT ACT
and u/sec. 78 (2) of BNS and under Sec. 3(2) (v-a) of SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989.

3. In view of the settlement arrived at between the
parties, today both the parties have filed Joint Memo dated
14.10.2026 compromising the matter. The Joint memo is filed
by both the parties, signed by them and their respective
counsels. Learned HCGP, de-facto complainant,
petitioner/accused, and their respective counsels are present.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17131
CRL.P No. 102878 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020189872026


The contents of the Joint memo and the affidavits read as
follows:
JOINT MEMO
That, the Petitioner and Complainant/respondent No. 2
jointly submits as under,
1. That, the Petitioner in the present petition has prayed
to quash the impugned FIR, Complaint and Chargesheet
vide Annexure-A, B and C for the alleged offences
punishable under Sec.66(E) 67, 67(A) of IT Act and
U/Sec. 78(2) of BNS and Under Sec. 3(2)(v-a) of SC and
ST (PA) Act, 1989, and further proceedings in SPL SC/ST
No.38/2025 on the file of II Additional District and
Sessions/Special Judge, Dlata de Annexure-D.
2. That, the above mentioned FIR and the criminal
proceeding is set in motion based on the complaint given
by the Respondent No.2 herein alleging that the
complainant had misused her private photos and videos
without her consent and blackmailed her.
3. That, in view of the intervention and the suggestion by
the elders of the family the complainant and the petitioner
have decided to resolve the dispute amicably without
proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. That,
the Complainant after having conversation with the
Petitioner in the presence of eiders of the family have
decided to not to press the changes against the Petitioner

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17131
CRL.P No. 102878 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020189872026


for the reason that it will affect his future as the Petitioner
is of tender age.
4. That, the continuation of the proceeding will also result
in disturbance to the family of the Complainant as the
complainant has to look after her daughters who are
pursuing their studies.
5. That, the Petitioner also agreed and undertook to not
to disturb the complainant or try to contact or repeat any
of the act to hurt the sentiment of the Petitioner.
6. That, both the parties with the intension to put an end
to the litigation have entered into the present smemo and
the present memo is voluntary conscious and without
coercion or undue influence and both the parties have
agreed to file the present joint memo with their free will
and wish.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully that this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to accept the joint memo and quash the
impugned FIR, Complaint and Chargesheet vide
Annexure-A, B and C for the alleged offences punishable
under Sec.66(E), 67, 67(A) of IT Act and U/Sec. 78(2) of
BNS and Under Sec. 3(2)(v-a) of SC and ST (PA) Act,
1989, and further proceedings in SPL SC ST No.38/2025
on the file of II Additional District and Sessions/Special
Judge, Dharwad vide Annexure-D, in the interest of
justice and equity.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17131
CRL.P No. 102878 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020189872026


AFFIDAVIT
Herein 1, Shashi @ Shahikumar S/o: Basayya Hiremath
Age: 29 years Oce: Business, R/o: Mulatalli Village, To:
Hangal Dist: Haveri, today at Dharwad, do hereby state
on solemn affirmation as under.
1. That, I am the Petitioner in this Criminal Petition and I
know the facts of the case. Hence I am swearing to this
affidavit.
2. That, the contents of paras 1 to 6 of Joint memo
accompanying this Affidavit are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, belief and information.
AFFIDAVIT
Herein 1, Manjula W/o: Kheemappa Rathod, Age:
45 Years, Occ: Professor, R/o: Plot No.4, Daneshwari
Colony, Behand Govt, PU Collage, Gopanakoppa, Hubballi,
Dist: Dharwad, do hereby state on solemn affirmation as
under.
1. That, I am the Respondent No.2/ Complainant in
this Criminal Petition and I know the facts of the case.
Hence, I am swearing to this affidavit.
2. That, the contents of paras 1 to 6 of Joint memo
accompanying this Affidavit are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, belief and information.
Hence the Affidavit.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17131
CRL.P No. 102878 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020189872026



4. It is well established principles of law that while
granting bail, the Court has to consider the nature of the
offence, circumstances in which the offence is committed,
position and status of the petitioner with reference to the victim
and witnesses, likelihood of fleeing away from justice, of
repeating similar offences by the petitioner the possibility, of
tampering with the witnesses, character and antecedents of the
petitioner. Further, the law is well settled that, while disposing
of a bail petition, Court need not scan the prosecution papers
and hold mini trial.

5. Keeping all these factors in mind, when the Court
goes through the entire material placed on record, it can be
said that prima facie there are no reasonable and sufficient
grounds to believe, at this stage, that the petitioner is guilty of
the offences alleged. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for
bail.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17131
CRL.P No. 102878 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020189872026


6. 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. 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.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17131
CRL.P No. 102878 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020189872026


(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.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17131
CRL.P No. 102878 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020189872026


(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

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17131
CRL.P No. 102878 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020189872026


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

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17131
CRL.P No. 102878 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020189872026


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 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17131
CRL.P No. 102878 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020189872026


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

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17131
CRL.P No. 102878 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020189872026


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
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."

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17131
CRL.P No. 102878 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020189872026


8. From the perusal of the aforesaid decision, facts and
circumstances and the material available on record, it appears
that the petitioner has misused the private photos and videos
of the defacto complainant without her consent and hence, the
defacto complainant was constrained to lodge a complaint. Now
with the intervention of elders and well wishers, the dispute has
been resolved and in the joint memo the petitioner also agreed
and undertook not to disturb the complainant or try to contact
or repeat any of the act to hurt the sentiment of the defacto
complainant and, hence, 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
the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed by the
investigation 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

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17131
CRL.P No. 102878 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020189872026


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 Joint Memo 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 petitioner.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER

1. The Criminal Petition is allowed .


2. The entire proceedings in Special SC/ST
No.38/2025 in connection with Crime No. 74/2025
of CEN Crime P.S., Hubballi Dharwad city, pending
on the file of learned II Additional District &
Sessions/Special Judge, Dharwad, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 66(E), 67,
67(A) of IT ACT and u/sec. 78 (2) of BNS and under

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17131
CRL.P No. 102878 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020189872026


Sec. 3(2) (v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 against
the petitioner/accused is hereby quashed.

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.: 60