SMT. VIMAL MANOHAR SETTI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17577
CRL.P No. 100437 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020022532024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100437 OF 2024

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)


BETWEEN:



1. SMT. VIMAL MANOHAR SETTI

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

RESIDING OF: HOSPETH GALLI,
GOKAK – 591 307,

DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.


2. MANOHAR SETTI


AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDING OF: HOSPETH GALLI,

GOKAK – 591 307,

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

3. SATAPPA SHETTI

AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING OF: HOSPETH GALLI,
GOKAK – 591 307,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR R. GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17577
CRL.P No. 100437 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020022532024


THROUGH WOMEN POLICE STATION,
HUBBALLI - DHARWAD, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD – 580 001.

2. SMT. SHILP GOUTHAM SETTI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING OF: HOSPETH GALLI,
GOKAK – 581 317,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI,
NOW AT RAGHAVENDR COLONY,
SHANTHI NAGAR, KESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI – 580 023,
DISTRICT: DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN
CRIME NO.100/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 498(A), 323, 504, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND
UNDER SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE
III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT HUBBALLI, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17577
CRL.P No. 100437 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020022532024


ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4
under section 482 to CrPC/528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking to
quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.100/2023 for the
offence punishable under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read
with 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, pending on the file of learned III Addl. Civil Judge and
JMFC Court, Hubballi.
2. On the complaint of respondent No.2, the case came
to be registered against the petitioners for the offences
punishable under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of
IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Matter is now pending for investigation. Hence taking exception
to the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 have sought to
quash the entire proceedings.
3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners have filed a
memo dated 29.09.2026 which reads as under:-
Memo
Herein, the advocate for the petitioner respectfully to
submits under:

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17577
CRL.P No. 100437 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020022532024



For the reasons stated filling memo is that, the
matter was settled before the Hon'ble court in
W.P.NO.104784/2024 dated:24/4/2026 by way
compromise between respondent no.2 and petitioner
In view of the said order about said matter may
kindly be quash in the Interest of justice and equity.
A copy of the order annexued with this memo same
be consider the same in the interest of Justice and
equity.

4. The Memo and the copy of the order passed in
W.P.No.104784/2024 dated 24.04.2026 is taken on record.
Perused the FIR. The allegations made in the complaint shows
that the marriage of accused No.1 was solemnized with
respondent No.2/complainant on 12.07.2017 at Gokak,
Belagavi District. The couple lived together happily for some
time. It is further alleged that thereafter, the petitioners being
the in-laws started harassing the complainant mentally and
physically and demanded dowry from her.
5. However, in view of the memo submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioners stating that matter was settled
before this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.104784/2024 dated

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17577
CRL.P No. 100437 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020022532024


24.04.2026 by way of compromise between respondent No.2
and the petitioner, therefore, continuation of the prosecution
against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 is not at all
necessary and that would be nothing, but, abuse of process of
law. 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.
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

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17577
CRL.P No. 100437 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020022532024


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

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17577
CRL.P No. 100437 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020022532024


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 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

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17577
CRL.P No. 100437 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020022532024


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

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17577
CRL.P No. 100437 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020022532024


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

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17577
CRL.P No. 100437 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020022532024


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
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

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17577
CRL.P No. 100437 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020022532024


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."


.
7 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 marriage of accused No.1 was solemnized with
respondent No.2/complainant on 12.07.2017 at Gokak,
Belagavi District. The couple lived together happily for some
time. It is further alleged that thereafter, the petitioners being
the in-laws started harassing the complainant mentally and

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17577
CRL.P No. 100437 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020022532024


physically and demanded dowry from her. 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 memo is accepted. In view of the settlement
arrived between the parties and in view of the ratio laid down
in the above decision, it is just and necessary to permit the
parties to quash the proceedings.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER


1. The criminal petition is allowed .

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17577
CRL.P No. 100437 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020022532024



2. The entire proceedings in Crime No.100/2023 for
the offence punishable under sections 498(A), 323,
504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and under Sections 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the file
of learned III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court,
Hubballi is hereby quashed insofar as the
petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4, is concerned.


Pending IAs, 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.: 67