Karnataka HC Quashes Kidnapping-for-Ransom Case Against Maternal Uncle After Nephew Settles, Citing Remote Conviction Chances

The petitioner, accused No. 5, was implicated in a case arising from the disappearance and alleged kidnapping of the complainant’s young relative in August 2022. The child was traced in Goa the following day and returned to his family.

The police charge-sheeted the petitioner and others for offences under Sections 363, 364-A, 307, 506 and 120-B read with Section 149 IPC; the petitioner’s case was split and registered as S.C. No. 31/2026.

The petitioner and the de facto complainant, who are maternal uncle and nephew, later settled their dispute. The complainant stated that he did not wish to pursue the case and that the petitioner had been implicated without supporting evidence.

The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings against him under Section 528 BNSS.

The Court considered the inherent jurisdiction invoked under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (with the petition filed under Section 528 BNSS) to quash criminal proceedings, including proceedings for non-compoundable offences, where necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.

It also referred to Section 359 BNSS, under which the parties presented their compromise petition, while recognising that the alleged offences were non-compoundable.

Applying Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court noted that serious and heinous offences are generally not to be quashed merely on compromise; however, the Court may assess the nature of the allegations, the evidence, the likelihood of conviction, the stage of the case, and whether the dispute is predominantly personal or familial.

The Court treated the dispute as a family matter resolved voluntarily with the assistance of elders and considered the complainant’s stated unwillingness to proceed.

It noted that the charge-sheet material did not clearly establish the petitioner’s direct connection to the alleged kidnapping, and that the case against him was said to rest on co-accused statements, without evidence of communications or money transfers linking him to the other accused.

The child had been traced the next day, and the Court considered the prospects of conviction against the petitioner remote. On those circumstances, it concluded that continuing the prosecution against him would be unnecessary.

It quashed the proceedings in S.C. No. 31/2026, arising out of Crime No. 110/2022, only insofar as accused No. 5, the petitioner, was concerned.