MANJUNATH BASAVARAJ GOUDAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16816
CRL.P No. 102736 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185542026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102736 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH BASAVARAJ GOUDAR
S/O. BASAVARAJ GOUDAR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT: GULEDAGUDDA VILLAGE,
BADAMI TALUK, BATALKOT-587203.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAN G. MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY CEN POLICE STATION, BAGALKOT,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH-580011.
2. NEELAMMA NAGANUR W/O. LATE BRAMHANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT: HOSUR VILLAGE,
BABALESHWAR, VIJAYAPURA-586113.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI MARUTI A. HANCHINAMANI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.
528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO ADMIT THE PETITION, CALL FOR
RECORDS AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.58/2026 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.4/2026 OF CEN
POLICE STATION, BAGALKOT) PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BAGALKOT
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 66(d) AND 67 OF
THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 AND SECTIONS 78(2),
294 AND 238 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16816
CRL.P No. 102736 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185542026
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (Section
528 of BNSS, 2023) by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash
the entire proceedings in C.C.No.58/2026 in connection with
crime No.4/2026 of the CEN Police Station, Bagalkot pending
on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM,
Bagalkot, registered for the offences punishable under Section
66(d) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and
Sections 78(2), 294 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
2. In view of the settlement arrived at between the
parties, today both the parties have filed I.A.No.1/2026 under
Section 359 of BNSS, for compounding of offence alleged. The
I.A. 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.
The contents of the application reads as follows:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16816
CRL.P No. 102736 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185542026
“JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONER
AND RESPONDENT NO.2 SEEKING
COMPROMISE SECTION 359 OF BNSS
“The Petitioner and the Complainant/
Respondent No. 2 most respectfully submit jointly
as under,
1. That, the Respondent No. 2 has lodged the
complaint against the Accused Petitioner herein for
the alleged offences under Sections 166(d) and 67
of the Information Technology Act, 2000 registered
by CEN Police Station, Bagalkot in their P.S. Crime
No.4/2026, on 09.02.2026. Further, Hon'ble
Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bagalkot has
taken the cognizance on the charge sheet filed
against the Petitioner for the offence punishable
under sections 66(d), 67 of Information
Technology Act and 78(2), 294, 238 of BNS, on
22.04.2026.
2. It is alleged that certain vulgar messages were
sent from three Instagram accounts allegedly
operated by the Petitioner. However, there is no
cogent material establishing that the Petitioner was
the actual user of the said accounts or that he
transmitted the alleged messages. The essential
ingredients of the offences alleged are also not
made out.
3. On the advice of elders and well-wishers of both
the parties, the Petitioner and the Respondent No.
2 have decided to amicably settled the dispute. In
view of such settlement arrived at the grievance of
any kind for each other. They agreed to settle by
way of compromise on their own will and wish and
there is no force, threat and undue influence to
enter into compromise.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully pray that, in
view of matter having been settled, this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to allow the joint memo and
quash the impugned FIR, Complaint and all further
proceedings in C.C.No.58/2026 (arising out of
Crime No. 4/2026 of CEN Police Station Bagalkot)
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16816
CRL.P No. 102736 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185542026
pending on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge and CJM, Bagalkot for the offences
punishable under Sec. 66(d), 67 of Information
Technology Act and 78(2), 294, 238 of BNS.
Hence the Memo, in the interest of justice and
equity.”
3. 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 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 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.
4. In support of the compromise petition, petitioner
and respondent No.2 filed their affidavits. The contents of
Affidavits reads as under;
AFFIDAVIT
“Herein I, Manjunath S/o. Basavaraj Goudar,
Aged about 33 years, R/at. Guledagudda village,
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16816
CRL.P No. 102736 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185542026
Badami Taluk, Bagalkot-587203 today at Dharwad,
do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under.
1. That, I am the Petitioner in this Criminal
Petition and I know 1 the facts of the case. I am
authorized to sign this affidavit, hence I am
swearing to this affidavit.
2. That, the contents of paras 1 and 3 of our
application for Joint Meme accompanying this
Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, belief and information.
Hence the Affidavit.
AFFIDAVIT
Herein I, Neelamma Naganur W/o Late
Bramhananda Aged about 37 years, R/at. Hosur
village, Babaleshwar, Vijayapura -586113 today at
Dharwad, do hereby state on solemn affirmation
as under.
3. That, I am the Complainant / Respondent No. 2
in this Criminal Petition and I know the facts of the
case. I am authorized to sign this affidavit, hence I
am swearing to this affidavit.
4. That, the contents of paras 1 and 3 of our
application for Joint Memo accompanying this
Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, belief and information.
Hence the Affidavit.”
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 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16816
CRL.P No. 102736 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185542026
6. Perused the material available on record.
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.
(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.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16816
CRL.P No. 102736 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185542026
(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
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
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16816
CRL.P No. 102736 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185542026
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
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
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16816
CRL.P No. 102736 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185542026
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.
34. We find from the impugned order that the
sole reason which weighed with the High Court in
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16816
CRL.P No. 102736 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185542026
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
and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR
No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16816
CRL.P No. 102736 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185542026
Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be
quashed. We order accordingly."
8. 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
her mistake and she is intending to take back her case
registered against the petitioner on the advice of elders of both
the family. 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. Even though the role
attributed to the accused persons is not clear and the de-facto
complainant has not stated in clear terms that there was direct
nexus to the accused persons. Thus, the chances of conviction,
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16816
CRL.P No. 102736 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185542026
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.
9. Hence, the compromise petition is accepted. In view
of the settlement arrived at 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 petitioner. Hence, the Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal petition is allowed .
The entire proceedings pending in C.C.No.58/2026 in
connection with crime No.4/2026 of the CEN Police Station,
Bagalkot, pending on the file of the learned Principal Senior
Civil Judge and CJM, Bagalkot, registered for the offences
punishable under Section 66(d) and 67 of the Information
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16816
CRL.P No. 102736 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185542026
Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 78(2), 294 and 238 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is hereby quashed.
Pending I.A.s, if any, stand disposed of, as they do not
survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MBS /CT-AN
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2