Vundavalli Venkata Narayana Choudri vs The State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 1351 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Vundavalli Venkata Narayana Choudri vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2026

                                                -1-
                                                           NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540
                                                      CRL.P No. 200773 of 2025


                      HC-KAR




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                                        KALABURAGI BENCH
                           DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                                             BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
                               CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200773 OF 2025
                                      (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   VUNDAVALLI VENKATA NARAYANA CHOUDRI
                           S/O VUNDAVALLI VEERA VENKAT SURYA SATYA
                           NARAYAN MURTHY
                           AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: PVT SERVICE
                           R/O 201, RELIANCE KAMAL APARTMENT,
                           GOUTAMI ENCLAVE, KONDAPUR,
                           TQ: SERLINGAMPALLI, DIST:RANGAREDDY

                      2.   VUNDAVALLI ANNAPURANA
                           W/O VUNDAVALLI VEERA VENKAT SURYA SATYA
                           NARAYAN MURTHY
                           AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HH WORK
                           R/O 201, RELIANCE KAMAL APARTMENT,
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA                 GOUTAMI ENCLAVE, KONDAPUR,
DATTATRAYA                 TQ: SERLINGAMPALLI, DIST:RANGAREDDY
UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              3.   VUNDAVALLI VEERA VENKAT SURYA SATYA
KARNATAKA
                           NARAYAN MURTHY
                           S/O VUNDAVALLI SATYA NARAYAN
                           AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
                           R/O 201, RELIANCE KAMAL APARTMENT,
                           GOUTAMI ENCLAVE, KONDAPUR,
                           TQ: SERLINGAMPALLI, DIST:RANGAREDDY

                                                                 ...PETITIONERS
                      (BY SRI. SHIVANAND PATIL AND
                      SRI VARUN PATIL, ADVOCATES)
                              -2-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540
                                   CRL.P No. 200773 of 2025


HC-KAR




AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     THROUGH POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
     TURVIHAL POLICE STATION,
     TURVIHALI, BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC
     PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
     KALABURAGI-585107.

2.   SMT. USHARANI
     W/O VUNDAVALLI VENKATA
     NARAYANA CHOUDRI
     AGED: 27 YEARS, OCC: PVT SERVICE,
     NOW R/O C/O A NAGESHWAR RAO
     2ND FLOOR, AVG BUILDING,
     BESIDES REDDY SCHOOL,
     GANGANAGAR, SINDHNOOR,
     DIST: RAICHUR-584105
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHBUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1
    SRI.MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS CRL.P FILED IS U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), U/S 528
OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH
THE COMPLAINT, CHARGESHEET AND FIR IN CRIME NO.
57/2024, OF TURVIHAL POLICE STATION, SINDHANUR, FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A), 323, 504, 354, AND 34
OF IPC R/W SEC.3, 4 AND 6 OF DP ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR.


       THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
                              -3-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540
                                   CRL.P No. 200773 of 2025


HC-KAR




                       ORAL ORDER

This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in

Crime No.57/2024, registered by Turvihal Police Station,

for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323,

354 and 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6

of Dowry Prohibition Act, (for brevity "D.P. Act"), presently

pending on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Maski,

Raichur.

2. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties

filed IA.No.1/2026 under Section 359 r/w Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, seeking permission to

compound the offences and to quash the proceedings. The

application reads as follows:

"The petitioners and respondent No.2 have settled the dispute between them under the below mentioned terms & conditions:

1. That the respondent No.2 in the above captioned petition has already filed MC No.45/2024 u/s 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540

HC-KAR

Act for dissolution of Marriage, now that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have agreed to settle the dispute, the parties shall approach the Jurisdictional court within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order seeking Consent Divorce after conversion of the petition into petition u/s 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act accordingly.

2. That the petitioners have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.22,50,000/- (Twenty Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) toward permanent alimony by way of Demand Draft bearing No.97369 dated 16.02.2026, which is handed over to the respondent No.2 before this Hon'ble Court. That in lieu of the payment of permanent alimony, it is agreed by respondent No.2 that she shall have no further claims of any kind including maintenance as against the petitioners in future.

3. The respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw the petition filed u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act pending in Crl Misc No. 1360/2024 by producing the copy of the order passed in the above captioned petition. That the respondent No.2 further concedes to quash the prosecution initiated against the petitioners in C.C.486/2024 pending before Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Maski.

4. That since there is a dispute between the parties regarding possession of the original documents such as Marks Card, Passport, Certificates etc, the respondent no.2 is at liberty to seek/file application before the appropriate authority for issuance of documents by producing the copy the order passed in the above captioned petition.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540

HC-KAR

5. That in view of the compromise entered between the parties, the application filed seeking quashing of proceedings, the alleged offences are not heinous and not against the society at large. The compromise will bring peace and harmony in the life of parties to lis.

6. The above terms are read and explained to both the parties and without force or coercion the petitioners and respondent No.2 agree on all term and conditions have signed the present application.

7. The allegations made by the petitioners and respondent No.2 against each other are agreed to be withdrawn unconditionally.

Wherefore for the terms and conditions agreed upon the above captioned petition may kindly be allowed by recording the aforesaid compromise and compounding the office in the interest of justice and equity."

3. The parties to the proceedings are present

before the Court and they have affixed their signatures on

the application by agreeing the terms and conditions

mentioned in the application. The petitioners handed over

the demand draft for a sum of Rs.22,50,000/- (Rupees

Twenty Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to respondent

No.2 and the same is received by respondent No.2.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540

HC-KAR

4. The offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-

compoundable in nature. Apparently, the same can be

considered as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi

Narayan reported in 2019 (5) SCC 688 in para No.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

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540

HC-KAR

private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

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

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540

HC-KAR

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 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

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540

HC-KAR

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."

5. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in above case, the offences invoked in this

case are totally private in nature and do not have any

serious impact on the society. In such circumstances, the

petitioners and respondent No.2 are permitted to

compound the offences. Consequently, the proceedings

against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 is liable to be

quashed, since the continuation of proceedings is nothing

but abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to

pass the following;

                           ORDER

  (a)     The petition is allowed.

  (b)     The complaint, charge sheet and FIR against

the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.57/2024, registered by Turvihal Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 354 and 504 r/w Section

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540

HC-KAR

34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, (for brevity "D.P. Act"), presently pending on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Maski, Raichur, is hereby quashed.

(c) As per condition No.4 of the compromise application, if any application/request made by respondent No.2 before the appropriate authority for issuance of the documents by placing this order, the concerned authorities are directed to consider the same in accordance with law, without any undue delay.

Sd/-

(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13