Karnataka High Court
Sri Shreekant vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1299
CRL.A No. 200387 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200387 OF 2025
(U/S 14 (A))
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHREEKANT
S/O SHARANAPPA BIRADAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: EX-ARMY/AGRICULTURE,
R/O MANNAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA 2. SRI SHIVALING @ SHIVALINGAPPA
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI S/O NINGANNA BIRADAR @ PATIL,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O YATNOOR VILLAGE,
TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 310
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1299
CRL.A No. 200387 of 2025
HC-KAR
THROUGH, AFZALPUR POLICE STATION,
TQ. AFZALPUR DIST. KALABURAGI
REPT. BY ITS ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH, KALABURAGI-585102.
2. SHASHIKALA D/O YAMUNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCC: WPC-410/POLICE OFFICER,
R/O ANNURE GPURAMMA CAMP,
HIREJUNTAKAL ROAD, GANGAVATI TOWN
TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583 227
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. VIJAYA M. PATIL ADV., FOR R2)
THE CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14-A (1) OF
SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 05.12.2025 IN SPL.C.NO.212/2025
(ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.82/2025) PASSED BY THE II
ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS/SPECIAL JUDGE,
KALABURAGI BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED
NO.1 AND 2 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS.
352 R/W 3(5) OF BNS (504 AND 34 OF IPC) AND SEC.
3(1)(r)(s) AND 3(1)(w) (i) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989
PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DIST. AND
SESSIONS/SPECIAL JUDGE KALABURAGI IN SPL.C.NO.
212/2025 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.82/2025)
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT- AFZALPUR POLICE
STATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1299
CRL.A No. 200387 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.12.2025 passed in Special Case No.212/2025 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi [for brevity, 'the Special Judge'] whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the discharge application filed by the appellants under Section 250 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [for brevity, 'the BNSS, 2023'] for the offences punishable under Section 352 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [for brevity, 'BNS, 2023'] and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for brevity, 'the SC & ST (POA) Act,'].
2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2-complainant, lodged the complaint before respondent No.1-Police on 13.05.2025 alleging that she was working as a Women Police Constable at Amruturu Police Station, Taluk Kunigal, District Koppal. -4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1299 CRL.A No. 200387 of 2025 HC-KAR During that time, she fell in love with one Bhagavantraya Biradar, Police Constable of the said Police station. Thereafter, they both were in intimate relationship and said Bhagavantraya Biradar agreed to marry respondent No.2. However, after sometime, he discontinued the relationship with respondent No.2. As such, respondent No.2 approached the family members of Bhagavantraya Biradar and informed them about the promise he made to her. At that time, the appellants, being the uncles of Bhagavantraya Biradar abused respondent No.2 in filthy language by mentioning her caste and stated that they will not perform his marriage with respondent No.2. As such, she lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police on 13.05.2025. Thereafter, respondent No.1-Police investigated the case and laid charge sheet against the appellants for the aforementioned offences before the Special Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed an application under Section 250 of BNSS, 2023 to discharge them from for the offences they have been -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1299 CRL.A No. 200387 of 2025 HC-KAR charge sheeted. However, the said application was dismissed by the learned Special Judge. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred this appeal to set-aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge to discharge them.
3. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and they do not want to pursue the case further. Accordingly, they also filed the application under Section 320 Cr.P.C./Section 395 of BNSS, 2023, seeking permission to compound the offences. The affidavit accompanied to the application reads as under:
"2. I state that, I & another appellant have filed the above criminal Appeal challenging the order dated 05.12.2025 in Spl.C 212/2025 passed by the II Addl District and Sessions/Special Judge Kalaburagi, where under dismissed the application seeking discharge filed by the appellants/Accused No. 1 & 2 for commission of alleged offences under section 352 R/w 3(5) of BNS & sec. 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (1) (w) (i) of SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989.
3. I state that, the respondent No.2 herein out of frustration of break up relationship with the -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1299 CRL.A No. 200387 of 2025 HC-KAR Appellants relative filed complaint against these appellants. The respondent No.2 thereafter realized no role of these appellants in the ongoing dispute between respondent No.2 and relative of appellants herein. The complaint filed was of a spur of the moment. Now the parties on intervention of the elders, relatives and well wishers, have settled the issue and in furtherance of the same they are reporting this compromise.
I state that in view of issue being resolved now the respondent No.2 do not want to prosecute the case against me & other appellant.
5. I state that since entire allegations in the complaint revolves around the sudden spur, which is resolved now, in the interest of both the parties and to advance harmony with the respondent No.2, I respectfully pray that this Hon'ble court be pleased to allow the accompanying compromise petition and may be pleased to permit us to compromise the issue by quashing entire proceedings thereby acquitting me & other petitioners, in the ends of justice."
4. No doubt, the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(1)(w)(i) of SC & ST (POA) Act are not compoundable in nature. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 1 SCC 547 at paragraphs-15 to 19 held as under:
"15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1299 CRL.A No. 200387 of 2025 HC-KAR Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of uppercastes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twinfold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of castebased atrocities.
16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special statute' would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.
17. Adverting to the case in hand, we note that the present Appellant has been charged and convicted under the unamended Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act7, which was as follows:-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1299 CRL.A No. 200387 of 2025 HC-KAR "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--
Xxxx
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
xxxx"
18. We may hasten to add that in cases such as the present, the Courts ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that the complainant victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will and not on account of any duress. It cannot be understated that since members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe belong to the weaker sections of our country, they are more prone to acts of coercion, and therefore ought to be accorded a higher level of protection. If the Courts find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief can be given to the accused party. What factors the Courts should consider, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
19. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in light of the aforestated principles, as well as having meditated on the application for compromise, we are inclined to invoke the powers under Article 142 and quash the instant Criminal proceedings with the sole objective of doing complete justice between the parties before us. We say so for the reasons that:
Firstly, the very purpose behind Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST is to deter castebased insults and intimidations when they are used with the intention of demeaning a victim on account of he/she -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1299 CRL.A No. 200387 of 2025 HC-KAR belonging to the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe community. In the present case, the record manifests that there was an undeniable preexisting civil dispute between the parties. The case of the Appellant, from the very beginning, has been that the alleged abuses were uttered solely on account of frustration and anger over the pending dispute. Thus, the genesis of the deprecated incident was the aforestated civil/property dispute. Considering this aspect, we are of the opinion that it would not be incorrect to categorise the occurrence as one being overarchingly private in nature, having only subtle undertones of criminality, even though the provisions of a special statute have been attracted in the present case.
Secondly, the offence in question, for which the Appellant has been convicted, does not appear to exhibit his mental depravity. The aim of the SC/ST Act is to protect members of the downtrodden classes from atrocious acts of the upper strata of the society. It appears to us that although the Appellant may not belong to the same caste as the Complainant, he too belongs to the relatively weaker/backward section of the society and is certainly not in any better economic or social position when compared to the victim. Despite the rampant prevalence of segregation in Indian villages whereby members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community are forced to restrict their quartes only to certain areas, it is seen that in the present case, the Appellant and the Complainant lived in adjoining houses. Therefore, keeping in mind the socioeconomic status of the Appellant, we are of the opinion that the overriding objective of the SC/ST Act would not be overwhelmed if the present proceedings are quashed.
Thirdly, the incident occurred way back in the year 1994. Nothing on record indicates that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1299 CRL.A No. 200387 of 2025 HC-KAR incident had transpired between the parties. The State Counsel has also not brought to our attention any other occurrence that would lead us to believe that the Appellant is either a repeat offender or is unremorseful about what transpired.
Fourthly, the Complainant has, on her own free will, without any compulsion, entered into a compromise and wishes to drop the present criminal proceedings against the accused.
Fifthly, given the nature of the offence, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellant had been concluded.
Sixthly, the Appellant and the Complainant parties are residents of the same village and live in very close proximity to each other. We have no reason to doubt that the parties themselves have voluntarily settled their differences. Therefore, in order to avoid the revival of healed wounds, and to advance peace and harmony, it will be prudent to effectuate the present settlement."
5. On perusal of the above judgment, it is clear that, under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS, 2023, the proceedings initiated under the SC & ST (POA) Act, may be permitted to be closed, if the complainant is willing to settle the dispute. In the instant case, the complainant/respondent No.2 has categorically stated in her affidavit that the proceedings could be quashed, since
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1299 CRL.A No. 200387 of 2025 HC-KAR she does not want to pursue the same. Today, respondent No.2 is physically present before the Court and reiterated the contents made in her affidavit.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 held in para-13 as under:
"13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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;
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1299 CRL.A No. 200387 of 2025 HC-KAR
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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;
iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1299 CRL.A No. 200387 of 2025 HC-KAR collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation.
Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-
compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."
7. Placing reliance on the above judgments, I am of the considered view that, in view of the categorical statement of respondent No.2 and the appellants by way of an affidavit that they are not interested to pursue the
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1299 CRL.A No. 200387 of 2025 HC-KAR case, permission can be accorded to compromise the case by allowing the application under Section 320 Cr.P.C./Section 395 of BNSS, 2023. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions/Special Judge, Kalaburagi dated 05.12.2025 in Special Case No.212/2025 is hereby set-aside.
iii. The discharge application filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 before the Special Court under Section 250, BNSS is allowed.
iv. Consequently, the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 352 r/w Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1299 CRL.A No. 200387 of 2025 HC-KAR Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE SWK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3 CT-BH