BABAKHALANDAR S/O MABUBSAB ALIAS MAIBUSAB GADAG ALIAS MANIYAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16970
CRL.P No. 102834 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186572026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102834 OF 2026
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. BABAKHALANDAR S/O. MABUBSAB
@ MAIBUSAB GADAG @ MANIYAR,
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: CHICKEN SHOP BUSINESS,
R/O. DIDDIKERI ONI,
TQ. AND DIST: KOPPAL-583231.
2. DADAPEER S/O. MABUSAB MANIYAR
@ SHAIKH,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. SHIRAHATTI, TQ. SHIRAHATTI,
DIST: GADAG-582120.
3. MAHAMMAD RAFIQ
S/O. MABUSAB MANIYAR,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. SHIRAHATTI, TQ. SHIRAHATTI,
DIST: GADAG-582120.
4. TOUSIF S/O. MAHAMMAD RAFIQ
@ RAFIQ MANIYAR, AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: CHICKEN SHOP BUSINESS,
R/O. SHIRAHATTI, TQ. SHIRAHATTI,
DIST: GADAG-582120.
5. NADEEM @ JILANI
S/O. MAHAMMAD RAFIQ MANIYAR,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16970
CRL.P No. 102834 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186572026
OCC: CHICKEN SHOP BUSINESS,
R/O. SHIRAHATTI, TQ. SHIRAHATTI,
DIST. GADAG-582120.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HUSENSAB S. KUNDAGOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH I.O. SHIRAHATTI POLICE STATION,
REP. BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.
2. VICTIM,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NAGARI ONI, SHIRAHATTI,
TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582120.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. SAIYAD D. MULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF
CR.P.C./U/S.528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.59/2026 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S.376(2), 420, 506, 312 R/W. 34 OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE ARISING OUT OF SHIRAHATTI POLICE STATION
CRIME NO.67/2026 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG, SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 ARE CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16970
CRL.P No. 102834 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186572026
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
HCGP for respondent-State and respondent No.2.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 seeking to quash the
entire proceedings in S.C.No.59/2026 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 420, 506, 312
read with 34 of IPC arising out of Shirahatti Police Station
Crime No.67/2026 pending on the file of learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, insofar as petitioners/
accused No.1 to 5 are concerned.
3. On the complaint of respondent No.2 (victim-
defacto complainant), the case came to be registered in
Crime No.67/2026 of respondent-police for the aforesaid
offences. In turn, the Investigating Officer conducted
investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused
persons and the matter is now committed to the Court of
Sessions for trial. Hence, taking exception to the same,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16970
CRL.P No. 102834 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186572026
the petitioners have sought to quash the entire charge
sheet.
4. In view of the settlement arrived at between
the parties, today both the parties have filed
I.A.No.1/2026 under Section 320 read with Section 482 of
Cr.P.C./Section 359 read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023,
for compounding of offences alleged. The I.A. is filed by
both the parties, signed by them and their respective
counsels. Learned HCGP, de-facto complainant,
petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 and their respective
counsels are present. The contents of the I.A. and
affidavits read as follows:
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 320 R/W
SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CODE/SECTION 359 R/W 528 OF B.N.S.S.
“That for the reason stated in the accompanying
affidavits this Hon'ble Court may kindly permit the
parties to compound the proceedings in S.C.
No.59/2026 registered for the alleged offences
punishable u/s 376(2), 420, 506, 312 r/w 34 of
Indian Penal Code arising out of Shirahatti PS Crime
No. 67/2026 pending on the file of the Learned
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16970
CRL.P No. 102834 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186572026
Principal District and Sessions Court Gadag, in the
interest of justice.”
AFFIDAVIT
“HEREIN, I, Babakhalandar S/o Mabubsab @
Maibusab Gadag @ Maniyar, Age: 23 Years, Occ:
Chicken Shop Business, R/o: Diddikeri Oni, Tq and
Dist:Koppal -583231, today at Central Prison
Dharwad, do hereby state on solemn affirmation as
under:
1. I state that, I am the Petitioner No-1/ Accused
No-1 we have filed this present for quashing of
entire proceedings registered against myself and
other. I know the facts of this Case hence I am
swearing to this Affidavit for myself and on behalf
of other petitioners.
2. I state that, above petition is filed challenging the
entire Proceedings initiated against Petitioners in
S.C. No.59/2026 registered for the alleged
offences punishable u/s 376(2), 420, 506, 312
r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code arising out of
Shirahatti PS Crime No. 67/2026 pending on the
file of the Learned Principal District and Sessions
Court Gadag. The averments made in the petition
may be read as part & parcel of the above
affidavit.
3. I state that, upon the intervention of elders & well-
wishers the dispute amongst the Petitioners and
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16970
CRL.P No. 102834 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186572026
the Respondent No.2 has been resolved. I further
state that, the Petitioners and the Respondent No.
2 have agreed to not hold any grudge or
animosity against each other.
4. I State that, the Petitioners and Respondent No.2
have agreed to compound the case S.C.
No.59/2026 registered for the alleged offences
punishable u/s 376(2), 420, 506, 312 r/w 34 of
Indian Penal Code arising out of Shirahatti PS
Crime No. 67/2026 pending on the file of the
Learned Principal District and Sessions Court
Gadag instituted by the Respondent No.2 against
the Petitioners.
5. I state that, I am informed by Respondent No.2
that she does not have objection to quash and
compound the case filed against the Petitioners in
S.C. No.59/2026 registered for alleged offences
punishable u/s 376(2), 420, 506, 312 r/w 34 of
Indian Penal Code arising out of Shirahatti PS
Crime No. 67/2026 pending on the file of the
Learned Principal District and Sessions Court
Gadag.
6. I State that, the myself and the Respondent No-
2/Victim De facto Complainant have agreed to get
marry with each other.
7. I state that, we have entered into the above
compromise without any coercion and undue
influence.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16970
CRL.P No. 102834 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186572026
WHEREFORE, I most respectfully pray that this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the accompanying
application, in the interest of justice and equity.”
AFFIDAVIT
“HEREIN, I Shahinabanu D/o Abdul Ruf Khaji,
Age: 20 Years, Occ: House Hold, R/o #34 Kacheri Rod
Shirhatti, Tq:Shirhatti Dist: Gadag, today at Dharwad,
do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under:
1. I state that, I am the Complainant/Respondent
No.2 in the top noted case and the Petitioners
have filed the above petition for quashing of
entire proceedings. I know the facts of this Case
hence I am swearing to this Affidavit.
2. I state that, the Petitioners have filed the above
petition is challenging the entire Proceedings
initiated against Petitioners in S.C. No.59/2026
registered for the alleged offences punishable
u/s 376(2), 420, 506, 312 r/w 34 of Indian Penal
Code arising out of Shirahatti PS Crime No.
67/2026 pending on the file of the Learned
Principal District and Sessions Court Gadag.
3. I state that, upon the intervention of elders &
well-wishers the dispute amongst me and
Petitioners has been resolved. I further state
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16970
CRL.P No. 102834 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186572026
that, me and the Petitioners have agreed to not
hold any grudge or animosity against each other.
4. I state that, I have no objection to quash and
compound the case filed against the Petitioners
in S.C. No.59/2026 registered for the alleged
offences punishable u/s 376(2), 420, 506, 312
r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code arising out of
Shirahatti PS Crime No. 67/2026 pending on the
file of the Learned Principal District and Sessions
Court Gadag.
5. I State that, myself and the Petitioner No.1/
Accused No.1 agreed to marry each other, now
all the Petitioners had decided to compromise
the said case.
6. I State that, since the Petitioner No.1/ Accused
No.1 is in judicial custody in connection of the
above case, in view of the matter getting settled
I have no objection to release the above said
Petitioner No.1/ Accused No.1 forthwith.
7. I state that, we have entered into the above
compromise without any coercion and undue
influence.
WHEREFORE, I most respectfully pray that this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the accompanying
application, in the interest of justice and equity.”
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16970
CRL.P No. 102834 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186572026
5. Perused the entire charge sheet. The allegations
made in the complaint shows that there was
misunderstanding between the defacto complainant and
the accused persons and same is settled as per the advice
of the elders of both family without any compulsion or
coercion. Moreover, accused No.1 is ready to perform his
marriage with the defacto complainant and the defacto
complainant also ready to perform her marriage. 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 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.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab &
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16970
CRL.P No. 102834 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186572026
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 NC: 2023:KHC-
K:6872 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.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16970
CRL.P No. 102834 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186572026
(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 NC: 2023:KHC-K:6872 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
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16970
CRL.P No. 102834 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186572026
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 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
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16970
CRL.P No. 102834 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186572026
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 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
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16970
CRL.P No. 102834 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186572026
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 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.
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16970
CRL.P No. 102834 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186572026
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
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16970
CRL.P No. 102834 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186572026
registered with Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar
Rural be quashed. We order accordingly."
7. On the perusal of the aforesaid decision, judgment
of co-ordinate bench and the facts and circumstances and
the material available on record, it appears that the
second respondent had filed the case against the
petitioners with misconception of facts and in a fit of
anger. Now accused No.1 is ready to perform his
marriage with the defacto complainant. 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
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16970
CRL.P No. 102834 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186572026
case. 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.
8. 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:
ORDER
The criminal petition is allowed .
The entire proceedings in S.C.No.59/2026 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 420,
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16970
CRL.P No. 102834 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186572026
506, 312 read with 34 of IPC arising out of Shirahatti
Police Station Crime No.67/2026 pending on the file of
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag,
insofar as petitioners/accused No.1 to 5 are concerned,
are hereby quashed.
It is made clear that if accused No.1 is failed to
perform marriage with the victim, the case has to be
revived and the same shall be tried in accordance with
law.
Since accused No.1 is in judicial custody, he shall be
released on bail forthwith, if he is not required in any
other cases.
Pending I.A.s, if any, stand disposed of as they do
not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
CLK /CT-GSM
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 54