Karnataka HC Quashes Station-Scuffle Case Against Railway Constable After Auto Driver Settles And Pleads Guilty In Countercase

In brief

The question

Whether the offences alleged under Sections 118 and 352 of the BNS could be compounded on the parties’ joint application under Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The court held

The Court allowed the criminal petition, permitted compounding under Section 359(1) and (2) of the BNSS, and quashed the FIR in Crime No. 69/2024 and the complaint dated 13 November 2024 against the petitioner.

01Facts

On 24 July 2024, an altercation occurred at Byappanahalli Railway Station after the petitioner, an RPF constable on duty, asked respondent No. 2, an autorickshaw driver, to move his vehicle. Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner assaulted him and lodged a complaint, leading to registration of Crime No. 69/2024 for offences under Sections 118 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

p. 3 · ¶ 2–3

The petitioner had also lodged a counter-complaint in Crime No. 51/2024; respondent No. 2 pleaded guilty in that matter and paid a fine.

p. 4 · ¶ 4

Respondent No. 2 later filed an affidavit stating that the incident arose in the heat of the moment, that the parties had settled their dispute, and that he did not wish to pursue Crime No. 69/2024. Both parties applied to compound the offences.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 5–6

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and the underlying complaint.

p. 2 · ¶ 1

02Issues

i.Whether the offences alleged under Sections 118 and 352 of the BNS could be compounded on the parties’ joint application under Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

p. 6 · ¶ 8

ii.Whether, in light of the settlement and respondent No. 2’s unwillingness to pursue the case, the proceedings in Crime No. 69/2024 should be quashed.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 9–10

03Law Applied

The Court considered Sections 118 and 352 of the BNS, under which the FIR had been registered, and Section 359(1) and (2) of the BNSS, under which the parties jointly sought compounding.

p. 3 · ¶ 2 · p. 5 · ¶ 6 · p. 6 · ¶ 8

It allowed the compounding application and, having regard to the settlement and respondent No. 2’s express unwillingness to proceed, exercised its quashing jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as invoked in the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS.

pp. 1, 6–7 · ¶ 9–10

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528 Section 359

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 118 Section 352 Section 132 Section 121 Section 351 Section 190

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioner was performing official duties when the altercation arose over respondent No. 2’s parked autorickshaw. It also considered the counter-case, in which respondent No. 2 had pleaded guilty, and his subsequent affidavit and in-court statement that he did not wish to pursue the present case.

p. 4 · ¶ 4 · pp. 5–6 · ¶ 5–7

On the complaint’s allegations and the parties’ statements, the Court viewed the incident as a heat-of-the-moment altercation rather than a premeditated act. It therefore allowed the joint application to compound the offences and concluded that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 7–9