Karnataka High Court
Shri Kartik S/O Channappa Marihal vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 May, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7209
CRL.P No. 101981 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101981 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHRI. KARTIK S/O. CHANNAPPA MARIHAL
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: MILITARY SERVICE,
R/O. DEGAON, TQ: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRANAV UMESH BADAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (KITTUR POLICE STATION),
R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD-580011.
2. MISS. ANNAPOORNA D/O. SHIVAPUTRAPPA,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NICHHANAKI, TQ: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. S.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
CRPC (528 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR,
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.05.21 CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN KITTUR
10:13:22 +0530
POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.87/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376(2)(n) AND 420 OF IPC,
PENDING IN S.C. NO. 69/2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF VIII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI, AGAINST
THE PETITIONER WHO IS ARRAYED AS AN ACCUSED, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7209
CRL.P No. 101981 of 2025
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed praying to quash the
proceedings in S.C. No. 69/2024 on the file of VIII
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi.
2. The aforementioned Sessions Case is registered
pursuant to a complaint dated 18.02.2023 lodged by the
second respondent herein against the present petitioner.
3. The contents of complaint would reveal that the
complainant and second respondent developed some sort
of acquaintance since 2022 and thereafter it appears that
with the consent of the complainant and her family
members the petitioner promised to marry the second
respondent.
4. The contents of the complaint would also reveal that
on the date of engagement the petitioner/ accused refused
to marry the second respondent. Referring to these
circumstances, the second respondent lodged a complaint
against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner/
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7209
accused has cheated the second respondent and had
sexual relationship with the second respondent on the
pretext of marrying the second respondent.
5. After the complaint, the Police have investigated the
case and have filed chargesheet. The petition is filed to
quash the chargesheet on the premise that the alleged
evidence collected by the Police do not constitute an
offence u/S 376 and 420 IPC.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for respondent No.2 jointly submit that the dispute
is amicably settled between the parties and they have filed
a petition u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. (Sec. 528 of BNSS, 2023)
R/W 320(2) of Cr.P.C. (Sec. 359(2) of BNSS, 2023).
7. The petitioner and the second respondent are
present before the Court.
8. It is noticed that even on the date of lodging the
complaint in the year 2023, the second respondent was
aged 23 years. The petitioner and second respondent on
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7209
enquiry by this Court jointly submit that they have
voluntarily entered into this settlement. Second
respondent further submits that she does not intend to
prosecute the case. She further states that she is getting
proposals for her marriage.
9. This Court has considered the materials placed on
record.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the second
respondent jointly placed reliance on the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab in Criminal Appeal No. 2052/2013. Referring
to the said judgment they jointly submit that the Court
has jurisdiction u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal
proceedings even for the offences alleged are not
compoundable.
11. This Court has perused the aforementioned
judgment. The relevant portion of the judgment is as
under:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7209
"But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the
purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising
from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or
such like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes
where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature
and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this
category of cases, High Court may quash criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise
between the offender and victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal
case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal case despite full and complete
settlement and compromise with the victim. In other
words, the High Court must consider whether it would be
unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with
the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law
despite settlement and compromise between the victim
and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice,
it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if
the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the
High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding."
12. After considering the law laid down in the
aforementioned case and after considering the materials
placed on record this Court is of the view that continuation
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7209
of the proceedings in S.C. No. 69/2024 on the file of VIII
Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi, would be an abuse of
process of Court as the complainant herself is not willing
to prosecute the case.
13. It is noticed from the contents of the complaint that
entire case is dependent on the testimony of the
complainant who is the second respondent in this case.
14. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the
view that a case is made out to quash the proceedings.
Hence the following order:
ORDER
Petition filed u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. (Sec. 528 of BNSS,
2023) is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in S.C.
No. 69/2024 on the file of VIII Additional Sessions Judge,
Belagavi, is quashed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
BVV
Ct:vh
