ISHAPRABHU S/O BASAVANGOUDA PATIL vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18256
CRL.P No. 103115 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020206502026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103115 OF 2026
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
ISHAPRABHU S/O BASAVANGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
RD
R/O. SHIVAKRUPA NEELAYA, 3 CROSS,
JAYANAGAR, SAPTAPUR LAST STOP,
DHARWAD, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD,
SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION,
DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580008.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
2. SMT. SARITA D/O. MADIVALGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER
R/O. BHARATI ANGAR, DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS,
2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
IN CC NO.72/2023 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER SOLE
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18256
CRL.P No. 103115 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020206502026
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 354
(D) , 504 AND 506 OF THE IPC 1860 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD ARISING IN CRIME
NO.91/2022 DHARWAD SUB-URBAN PS, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Girish A.Yadawad, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri.Praveena Y.Devareddiyavar., learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1–State and Sri.Prashant
Mathapati., learned counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioner
and de facto complainant are present.
2. The petitioner/accused has filed the present petition
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short
‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking to quash the entire proceedings in
C.C.No.72/2023, pending on the file of the learned Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC at Dharwad arising out of Crime
No.91/2022 of Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station registered for
offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 504 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). Now, the petitioner
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18256
CRL.P No. 103115 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020206502026
and de facto complainant have amicably resolved their
disputes.
3. On the complaint of respondent No.2-Smt. Sarita
D/o Madivalgouda Patil, the case came to be registered in Crime
No.92/2022 against the petitioner/accused for the aforesaid
offences. The matter is now pending for trial. Hence, taking
exception to the same, the petitioner has sought to quash the
entire proceedings.
4. In view of the settlement arrived between the
parties, today both the parties have filed Interlocutory
Application under Section 359 (2) read with Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, 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:
“ MEMORANDUM OF INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 359(2) R/W
SECTION 528 OF THE BNSS, 2023.
The petitioner and respondent No. 2 in the top
noted Criminal Petition respectfully submit as under:
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18256
CRL.P No. 103115 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020206502026
1. The petitioner has filed the top noted
criminal petition seeking quashment of the impugned
criminal proceedings in.
CC No. 72/2023 pending on the file of the Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad registered against
the petitioner for offences under Sections 354(D),
504 and 506 of IPC.
2. It is submitted that in view of the facts
pleaded in the Memorandum of Criminal Petition, the
respondent No.2 has agreed to compound the
offences charged against the petitioner. The offences
punishable under Sections 504 and 506 are
compoundable. However, the offence punishable
under Section 354(D) is non-compoundable and
hence, the parties have invoked the inherent
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble court
may be pleased to permit the petitioner and
respondent No.2 to compound the offences
punishable under Sections 354(D), 504 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 charged against the
petitioner and to consequently quash the criminal
proceedings in CC No. 72/2023 registered against
the petitioner for the said offences pending on the
file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad, in
the interest of justice and equity.”
5. In support of the compromise petition, the
petitioner as well as the de facto complainant filed their
affidavits. The contents of Affidavits reads as under;
AFFIDAVIT
I, Ishaprabhu S/o Basavangouda Patil, Age: 36
years, Occ: Business, R/o: ShivakrupaNeelaya, 3rd
Cross Jayanagar, Saptapur Last Stop, Dharwad Dist:
Dharwad 580001, do hereby state on oath and
solemn affirmation as under:
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18256
CRL.P No. 103115 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020206502026
1. I submit that I am petitioner herein and I
am acquainted with the facts of the case. Hence I am
competent to execute this affidavit.
2. I submit that based on the First Information
dated 28.04.2022 filed by the respondent No. 2, FIR
in Crime No. 91/2022 came to be registered against
me. Pursuant to filling of charge sheet, trial court by
order dated 23.03.2023 took cognizance of the
offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 504, 506
of IPC and hence, CC No. 72/2023 came to be
registered against me on the file of the trial court.
3. I submit that in view of the amicable
settlement between me and one Gangadhar Tarihal
with respect to the main No. 2 was a witness, the
respondent No. 2 has agreed to dispute arising out of
a loan transaction to which respondent compound
the offences charged against me in the impugned
criminal proceedings and for quashing the impugned
criminal have filed the accompanying application
seeking permission of this Hon'ble court to
compound the offence and for quashing the
impugned criminal proceedings. Hence, we
proceedings.
4. I submit that the averments made in the
accompanying application are true or correct. Hence,
I pray that the accompanying application may kindly
be allowed.
5. The contents of this affidavit are read over
and explained to us in Kannada and the same are
true and correct.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Smt. Sarita D/o Madivalgouda Patil, Age: 34
years, Occ: Teacher, R/o: Bharati Nagar, Dharwad
Dist: Dharwad 580001, do hereby state on oath and
solemn affirmation as under:
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18256
CRL.P No. 103115 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020206502026
1. I am the respondent No. 2 in the top noted
petition and I am acquainted with the facts of the
case. Hence I am competent to execute this affidavit.
2. I submit that based on the First Information
dated 28.04.2022 filed by the me, FIR in Crime No.
91/2022 came to be registered against petitioner.
Pursuant to filling of charge sheet, trial court by
order dated 23.03.2023 took cognizance of the
offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 504, 506
of IPC and hence, CC No.72/2023 came to be
registered against the petitioner on the file of the
trial court.
3. I submit that in view of settlement of
dispute between petitioner and my husband namely
Gangadhar Tarihal with regard to a loan transaction
which is now pending in Criminal Appeal No.
100356/2026 before this Hon'ble court, I have
agreed to compound the offence charged against the
petitioner and for quashing of the impugned criminal
proceedings. I state that I have voluntarily agreed to
compound the offence and hence, I am filling this
affidavit to express my willingness to compound the
offences charged against the petitioner.
4. I submit that the averments made in the
accompanying application are true or correct. Hence,
I pray that the accompanying application may kindly
be allowed.
5. The contents of this affidavit are read over
and explained to us in Kannada and the same are
true and correct.”
6. 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
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18256
CRL.P No. 103115 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020206502026
the parties, the Court may accept the compromise petition and
quash the proceedings.
7. Perused the complaint, FIR, 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 persons prayed to quash
the entire 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.
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
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18256
CRL.P No. 103115 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020206502026
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.
(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.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18256
CRL.P No. 103115 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020206502026
(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
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
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18256
CRL.P No. 103115 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020206502026
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 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.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18256
CRL.P No. 103115 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020206502026
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
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
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18256
CRL.P No. 103115 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020206502026
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
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
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18256
CRL.P No. 103115 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020206502026
facts and in a fit of anger. Now respondent No.2 has realized his
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 is not clear and the de-facto complainant has not stated
in clear terms that there was direct nexus to the accused. 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 are liable to be quashed.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18256
CRL.P No. 103115 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020206502026
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:
ORDER
The criminal petition is allowed .
The criminal proceedings pending in C.C.No.72/2023,
pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC
at Dharwad arising out of Crime No.91/2022 of Dharwad Sub-
Urban Police Station registered for offences punishable under
Sections 354(D), 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
are 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.: 103