SRI BHARAT S PATIL S/O SANJAY PATIL vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18311
CRL.P No. 101311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020104582026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101311 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI BHARAT S. PATIL
S/O. SANJAY PATIL
AGED ABOUT: 33 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O WALKI CHIKKODI,
TQ. DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. VIJAY A. PATIL
S/O. ABASAHEB,
AGED ABOUT: 33 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. WALKI CHIKKODI,
TQ. DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. PANDU B. PATIL @ PANDURANG B PATIL
S/O. BALAKU PATIL,
AGED ABOUT: 62 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. WALKI CHIKKODI,
TQ. DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. SANTOSH B. PATIL
S/O BABURAO PATIL
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE SECTOR,
R/O. WALKI VILLAGE,
TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. KIRAN D. PATIL
S/O. DINKAR PATIL
AGED ABOUT: 34 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE SECTOR,
R/O. WALKI VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18311
CRL.P No. 101311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020104582026
TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN P.TARIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SHARANABASAVARAJ C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH,
THOUGH ITS KHADAKALAT P S,
DHARWAD 01.
2. SRI VINOD M GHASTE
S/O. MALLAPPA GHASTE
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCC: LABOUR,
R/O. WALKI-591238,
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1,
MRS. RANJITA G. ALAGAWADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
(528 OF BNSS ACT 2023), PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION BY QUASHING THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDING INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED
1,2,4,5 AND 8 ARE CONCERNED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER 143,147,148,341,323,324,504,506 OF IPC AND SECTION
3(1)(r) 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) OF SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE
TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATTROCITIES) ACT 1989 IN CRIME NO
98/2023 REGISTERED KHADAKALAT POLICE STATION IN SPECIAL
CASE NO 687/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18311
CRL.P No. 101311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020104582026
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023
(Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) by the petitioners/accused No.1, 2, 4,
5 and 8 seeking to quash the entire proceedings in Crime
No.98/2023 of Khadakalat Police Station, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323,
324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending
on the file of learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Belagavi in Special Case No.187/2023.
2. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the
petitioners which came to be registered in Crime No.98/2023
for the aforesaid offences. Hence, taking exception to the
same, the petitioners have sought to quash the entire
proceedings.
3. In view of the settlement arrived at between the
parties, today both the parties have filed I.A.No.2/2026 under
Section 359 read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, for
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18311
CRL.P No. 101311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020104582026
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 No.1, 2, 4, 5
and 8 and their respective counsels are present. The contents
of the I.A. and affidavits read as follows:
“ APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 359 R/W. SECTION 528
OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA,
2023.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit,
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the parties
compound the proceedings in Crime No. 98/2023 for the
offences punishable under section 143, 147, 148, 341,
323, 324, 504, 506 of IPC and section 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s),
3(2)(v-a) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe
(Prevention of Attrocities) Act 1989 registered at
Khadakalat police station pending on the file of the III
Addl. District and Sessions Judge Belagavi &
consequently quash the entire proceedings, in the
interest of justice and equity. ”
AFFIDAVIT FILED BY PETITIONER NO.1
(IN VIEW OF COMPROMISE)
“I, Sri. Bharat S. Patil, S/o. Sanjay Patil, Aged about 33
years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o. Walki Chikodi Taluk,
District Belagavi, today at Dharwad do hereby solemnly
affirms on oath as follows:
1. I am the Petitioner No. 1 in the above criminal petition
and I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of
the case and I am competent to swear to this affidavit
for myself and on behalf of other Petitioners also. Hence,
this affidavit.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18311
CRL.P No. 101311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020104582026
2. I state that, the Petitioners in the above Criminal
Petition has questioned the initiated of criminal
proceeding against the petitioners/accused No. 1. 2. 4. 5
and 8 for the offences punishable under section 143,
147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 of IPC and section
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), & 3(2)(v-a) of. Schedule Caste and
Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Attrocities) Act 1989 in
Crime no 98/2023 registered at Khadakalat Police
Station in Special Case No.687/2023 pending on the file
of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge Belagavi.
3. I state that, in view of the intervention of the Elders of
Village, the Petitioners and Respondents have agreed to
settle the matter.
4. I state that, we have now agreed and handed over the
land measuring to an extent of 1 Gunta, bearing Sy. NO.
164/2 to Schedule Caste (madiga) community as the
complainant belong to the said community. The said land
is given for the purpose of graveyard for Schedule Caste
community through registered sale deed dated
04.07.2026.
5. I state that, the Complainant has assured us that, he
will withdraw all the pending cases registered against the
petitioner before Concerned Courts at Chikodi Taluk
within 4 weeks from the date of this compromise.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed before this
Hon'ble Court that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
allow the accompanying application, in the interest of
justice and equity.”
AFFIDAVIT FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
(IN VIEW OF COMPROMISE)
“I, Sri. Vinod M. Gaste, S/o. Mallappa Gaste, Aged about
38 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Walki, Chikodi Taluk, District
Belagavi, today at Dharwad do hereby solemnly affirms
on oath as follows:
1. I am the Respondent No. 2 in the above criminal
petition and I am conversant with the facts and
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18311
CRL.P No. 101311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020104582026
circumstances of the case and I am competent to swear
to this affidavit. Hence, this affidavit.
2. I state that, the Petitioners in the above Criminal
Petition has questioned the initiated of criminal
proceeding against the petitioners/accused No. 1, 2, 4, 5
and 8 for the offences punishable under section 143,
147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 of IPC and section
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), & 3(2)(v-a) of Schedule Caste and
Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Attrocities) Act 1989 in
Crime no 98/2023 registered at Khadakalat Police
Station in Special Case
No. 687/2023 pending on the file of the III Addl. District
and Sessions Judge Belagavi.
3. I state that, in view of the intervention of the Elders of
Village, the Petitioners and Respondents have agreed to
settle the matter.
4. I state that, now the Petitioners agreed and handed
over the land measuring to an extent of 1 Gunta, bearing
Sy. NO. 164/2 to Schedule Caste (madiga) community
i.e.. Respondent No. 2's community. I have received the
said land for the purpose of graveyard for Schedule
Caste community through registered 04.07.2026. sale
deed dated
5. I state that, I undertake that. I will withdraw all the
pending cases registered against the petitioners before
Concerned Courts at Chikodi Taluk within 4 weeks from
the date of this compromise.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed before this
Hon'ble Court that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
allow the accompanying application, in the interest of
justice and equity.”
Perused the complaint, FIR and I.A. The allegations
4.
made in the complaint shows that there was a dispute between
the complainant and the accused and same is settled as per the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18311
CRL.P No. 101311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020104582026
advice of the elders of both family without any compulsion or
coercion. Therefore, continuation of the prosecution against the
petitioners 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.
5. 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
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18311
CRL.P No. 101311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020104582026
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.
(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
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18311
CRL.P No. 101311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020104582026
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 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
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18311
CRL.P No. 101311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020104582026
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
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18311
CRL.P No. 101311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020104582026
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
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18311
CRL.P No. 101311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020104582026
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 to live
peacefully in future, this becomes an important
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18311
CRL.P No. 101311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020104582026
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."
6. On perusal of the aforesaid decision and on
consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present
case 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 second
respondent has realized his mistake and he is intending to take
back his case registered against the petitioners on the advice of
elders of both the families. In this context, the Court finds that,
the elders of the village and their family intervened in the
matter and parties have amicably settled their disputes and
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18311
CRL.P No. 101311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020104582026
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. 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:
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18311
CRL.P No. 101311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020104582026
ORDER
The criminal petition is allowed .
The entire proceedings in Crime No.98/2023
of Khadakalat Police Station, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,
341, 323, 324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending on the
file of learned III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Belagavi in Special Case No.687/2023
insofar as petitioners/accused No.1, 2, 4, 5 and 8
are concerned are hereby quashed.
I.A.No.2/2026 is allowed accordingly.
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.: 26