Karnataka HC Quashes Stalking Case After Complainant Agrees To Compromise Amid Settlement Of Her Husband’s Loan Dispute

Respondent No. 2’s complaint led to Crime No. 91/2022 and, after filing of the charge sheet, C.C. No. 72/2023 against the petitioner for offences under Sections 354(D), 504 and 506 IPC.

The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings; while the petition was pending, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 filed a joint application and affidavits recording their settlement and her willingness to compound the offences.

The parties stated that the settlement arose in the context of a dispute involving respondent No. 2’s husband and a loan transaction.

The case was pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoked in the petition and joint application, provides the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to make orders necessary to give effect to the BNSS, prevent abuse of the process of a court, or secure the ends of justice.

The order also refers to the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The court distinguished the High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings from the statutory power to compound offences, and relied on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466: non-compoundable proceedings may be quashed after settlement where the nature and circumstances of the case make that appropriate, particularly where the dispute is substantially private, the prospect of conviction is remote, and continuation would cause injustice; the power must be exercised cautiously and is generally inappropriate for heinous or serious offences affecting society.

The joint application stated that Sections 504 and 506 IPC were compoundable, whereas Section 354(D) IPC was not.

The court considered the complaint, FIR, charge sheet and compromise application.

It accepted that the parties had settled their dispute with the assistance of family elders and found no indication that the settlement resulted from compulsion or coercion.

Applying the principles in Narinder Singh, the court treated the dispute as one capable of private resolution, observed that the accused’s role was unclear and that the complainant had not clearly stated a direct nexus to him, and concluded that the likelihood of conviction was remote.

It therefore found that continuing the prosecution would be unnecessary and an abuse of process.

It quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 72/2023, pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad, arising from Crime No. 91/2022 and concerning Sections 354(D), 504 and 506 IPC.

Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of as not surviving for consideration.