INAYITHULLA ISHAKI ALIAS INAYATHULLA ISHAQUI S/O MOHIDDIN ALIAS MOHIUDDIN vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17329
CRL.P No. 102825 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184932026
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. 102825 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
INAYITHULLA ISHAKI @ INAYATHULLA ISHAQUI
S/O. MOHIDDIN @ MOHIUDDIN,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: PRAVATE WORK AT JEDDAH OF SAUDI ARABIA,
R/O. KHAZIYA RESIDENCY,
NAGAPPA NAIK ROAD, BHATKAL,
TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA- 581320.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
BHATKAL TOWN POLICE STATION, BHATKAL,
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD- 583011.
2. SRI MOHAMMAD IMRAN
S/O. MOHAMMAD MOHASIN,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: PRAVATE JOB AT JEDDAH OF SAUDI ARABIA,
R/O. AZAD NAGAR, 1ST CROSS,
NEAR KHASHIMJI SHOP,
KOKTI NAGAR, BHATKAL, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA- 581320.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17329
CRL.P No. 102825 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184932026
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS,
2023, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION FILED
U/SEC.528 OF BNSS, 2023 AND QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN
SC.NO.31/2026 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.110/2022 OF BHATKAL
TOWN PS, BHATKAL) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF II
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA,
KARWAR FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS. 363, 364-A, 307,
506, 120-B, R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER
/ACCUSED NO.5.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
PER :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
Heard Sri.Ganapati M.Bhat, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri.Jairam Siddi., learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1–State and
Sri.Vidyashankar G.Dalawai., learned counsel for
respondent No.2. The petitioner and de facto complainant
are present.
2. The petitioner/accused No.5 has filed the
present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking to quash the entire
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17329
CRL.P No. 102825 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184932026
proceedings in S.C.No.31/2026, pending on the file of the
learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uttara
Kannada, Karwar arising out of Crime No.110/2022 of
Bhatkal Town Police Station for offences punishable under
Sections 363, 364-A, 307, 506, 120-B read with Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). Now,
the petitioner and de facto complainant have amicably
resolved their disputes.
3. In view of settlement arrived at between the
parties, the petitioner and respondent No.2- de facto
complainant have filed a compromise petition under
Section 359 of BNSS, 2023 for compounding of offences
alleged against the petitioner. The contents of compromise
petition read as under:
“ JOINT COMPROMISE PETITION U/SEC.528 OF
BNSS, 2023, R/W 359 OF BNSS, 2023 :-
The petitioner and Respondent No.2 herein
humbly submit as follows:-
1. It is submitted that petitioner herein is
maternal uncle of Respondent No.2. When his
sister's minor son missing from the house on
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17329
CRL.P No. 102825 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184932026
21/08/2022, based on the CCTV footage, the 2nd
respondent herein approached PSI, Bhatkal Town PS
and hence on this complaint, case registered in
Crime No.110/2022 of Bhatkal Town PS for offences
punishable u/Secs. 363 of IPC against UNKNOWN
PERSONS. On 22/08/2022, police traced that boy at
Goa and handed over to family of complainant after
medical examination of minor boy, on the basis of
voluntary statements of Accused Nos. 1 and 2, police
recorded further statement of 2nd respondent as "all
family members discussed this issue and they
thought that, present petitioner who is maternal
uncle of 2nd respondent herein who working at
Jeddah of Soudi Arabia had some money problems
with his sister's husband Islam Sada/father of
alleged to kidnapped boy by giving sufari and hence
with the intention of recovery of money, by
conspiracy with other accused kidnapped that boy,
but police traced it and find out that boy. Later on
actually 2nd respondent and his family members
doesn't know the pending of case against the
petitioner for serious offences.
2. It is submitted that, at present, case is pending
against Accused No.1 to 4 in S.C.No. 17/2026 on the
file of Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Uttara Kannada, Karwar and due to petitioner is
working out of India, case split up and now pending
in S.C.No.31/2026 on the file of Court of II Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar
for an offences offences punishable u/Secs. 363,
364-A, 307, 506, 120-B, r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
3. It is submitted that, police filed charge sheet
against the Accused nos.1 to 4 and arrayed
petitioner as Accused No.5. In that chargesheet,
C.W.1 /Mohammad Imran/complainant is nephew of
petitioner, C.W.10 /Smt.Mohiba Afrin, W/o:Islam
Sada is sister of C.W.1 and niece of petitioner,
C.W.11 /Islam Abdul Rehaman Sada is husband of
C.W.10 and niece's husband of petitioner,
C.W.12 /Mohammad Ali is son of C.W.10 and great
nephew of C.W.13 /Kumari Firza is sister petitioner,
of C.W.10, C.W.14/ [Mohmmad Mohashin is father of
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17329
CRL.P No. 102825 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184932026
C.W.10, C.W.15 /Smt. Ishrit Paraven is mother of
C.W.10, C.W.16 /Smt.Huda Sakeeb Afrika is sister of
C.W.10, C.W.19 /Kumari Mariyam Arush is daughter
of C.W.10. All these witnesses are family
members of petitioner and 2nd respondent
herein and no where made statements as due
to conspiracy of petitioner, the alleged kidnap
occurred. Admittedly the boy/C.W.12 traced next
day of complaint without any bodily injury and police
handed over boy to the parents of boy. But police by
saying Accused No.1 expressed as due to say of
petitioner as he will give ransom, they kidnapped boy
with the assistance of Accused Nos.2 to 4. But at
the time of investigation, police nowhere
collected any communication between Accused
Nos.1 with petitioner (because at that time in the
year 2022 petitioner was working at Jedda of Soudhi
Arebia) and moreover no any recovery of money
from other accused when case as those
accused kidnapped boy for sufari if really which
was already given by petitioner. Entire case to
arraying petitioner as accused solely on the
voluntary statement of other accused without any
materials at chargesheet. The allegations and
gathered materials do not disclose the
commission of any offenses or participation by
the petitioner. Actually 2nd respondents and other
charge sheet witnesses do not know the pending
case till his arrest in the months of July 2026 when
he was returning to India.
4. It is submitted that, the case registered in the
year 2022 and 2nd respondent and other above
mentioned chargesheet witnesses are related to each
other and hence 2nd respondent is not ready to
proceed further case against the petitioner as he is
maternal uncle and there is no any financial dispute
between family members. And moreover at any point
of time, petitioner approached Accused No.1 and 2
physically or telephonically and no where paid any
amount sufari to them to kidnap his own niece's
minor son. In view of there is no proof of the
ransom/sufari or the conversation, continuing a trial
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17329
CRL.P No. 102825 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184932026
without any real evidence is an exercise in futility
and totally it is waste of judicial time.
5. It is submitted that, onwards this incident, no
where the petitioner made any quarrel or same
attempt of kidnap etc and 2nd respondent
understands his mistakes as without preliminary
enquiry police at the time of investigation recorded
further statements and finally without any materials
as phone calls if any or any money transactions
occurred in between other accused with petitioner,
filed charge sheet against the petitioner for serious
offences even if petitioner nowhere involved directly
or indirectly in the case of kidnap of minor boy of his
own niece's boy. Hence Respondent No.2/de-facto
complainant is ready to withdraw and compromise
the case with petitioner/accused No.5. This intention
of original complainant is voluntarily expressed by
him as he and his entire family members nowhere
any dispute with petitioner and they have no any
intention to prosecute the petitioner in present case
and hence without any pressure from anybody or
force or collusion or undue influence in such
compromise and it is his decision to withdraw the
case against petitioner herein and hence continuation
of the present proceedings is abuse the process of
law.
Wherefore it is humbly prayed that, due to above
said COMPROMISE between Petitioner and
Respondent No.2 herein, please to accept
compromise between the parties and be please to
QUASH proceedings in S.C.No.31/2026 (arising out
of Crime No.110/2022 of Bhatkal Town PS, Bhatkal)
pending on the file of the Court of II Addl. District
and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar for an
offences punishable u/Secs. 363, 364-A, 307, 506,
120-B, r/w Sec.149 of IPC, in so far as
petitioner/Accused No.5, in the interest of justice
and equity.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17329
CRL.P No. 102825 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184932026
4. In support of the compromise petition,
respondent No.2 - the de facto complainant filed his
affidavit. The contents of affidavit reads as under;
“AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT No.2
Herein I, Mohammad Imran, S/o: Mohammad
Mohasin, Age: 34 years, Occ: Private Job at Jeddah
of Saudi Arabia,R/o:Azad Nagar, 1st Cross, Near
Khashimji Shop, Kokti Nagar, Bhatkal, Tq: Bhatkal,
Dist: Uttara Kannada-581 320, today at Dharwad, do
hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-
1) I am Respondent No.2 in the above said criminal
petition. The petitioner is my maternal uncle. I know
the facts of the case. Hence I am swearing this
affidavit.
2) I state that the grounds urged in the
accompanying joint compromise petition may kindly
be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.
3) I state that, without detailed enquiry at that time
in the year 2022, I and other family members made
mistake as police recorded the further statements as
petitioner involved in this case, but afterwards it
disclosed as petitioner is innocent in this case which
committed by other accused and hence due to no
evidences against maternal uncle/petitioner
herein, I do not wish to pursue the matter
against him.
4) I state that para No.1 to 5 of petition are true and
correct of my knowledge and belief, true and correct.
It is my own decision to withdraw the case against
the petitioner without any pressure as stated in joint
compromise petition.
WHEREFORE the Hon'ble High Court be please to
allow the accompanying application, in the interest of
justice and equity .”
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17329
CRL.P No. 102825 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184932026
5. Learned counsels for the petitioner, respondent
No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1- State are
present and submit that, in view of the compromise arrived
at between the parties, the Court may accept the
compromise petition and quash the proceedings.
6. Perused the material available on record.
7. Perused the complaint, charge-sheet and
compromise petition. The allegations made in the charge-
sheet shows that there was a dispute between the
complainant and the accused and the same is settled as
per the advice of the elders of both family without any
compulsion or coercion. Therefore, continuation of the
prosecution against the petitioner 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 person prayed to quash the entire
proceedings and permit to compound the offences. As the
matter is settled between the parties, it is just and
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17329
CRL.P No. 102825 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184932026
necessary to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the
entire 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 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.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17329
CRL.P No. 102825 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184932026
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 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
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17329
CRL.P No. 102825 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184932026
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 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
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17329
CRL.P No. 102825 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184932026
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
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.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17329
CRL.P No. 102825 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184932026
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 accepted
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17329
CRL.P No. 102825 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184932026
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, judgment
of co-ordinate bench and the facts and circumstances and
the material available on record, it appears that respondent
No.2 had filed the case against the petitioner with
misconception of facts and in a fit of anger. Now
respondent No.2 has realized his mistake and he is
intending to take back his case registered against the
petitioner on the advice of elders of both the family as they
are relatives. In this context, the Court finds that, the
elders 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
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17329
CRL.P No. 102825 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184932026
chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the
prosecution case. Even though the role attributed to the
accused person is not clear and the de-facto complainant
has not stated in clear terms that there was direct nexus to
the accused person. 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.
10. 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:
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17329
CRL.P No. 102825 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184932026
ORDER
The criminal petition is allowed .
The criminal proceedings pending in S.C.No.31/2026,
pending on the file of the learned II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar arising out of
Crime No.110/2022 of Bhatkal Town Police Station for
offences punishable under Sections 363, 364-A, 307, 506,
120-B read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 insofar as petitioner-accused No.5 is concerned is
hereby quashed.
Pending I.A.s, if any, stand disposed of as they do
not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
AM
CT:GSM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52