[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Ishwar S/O Jamlu Pawar vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1844
CRL.P No. 202121 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 202121 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. ISHWAR S/O JAMLU PAWAR
AGE: 60 YEARS
OCCUPATION: COOLIE
R/O KOUJALAGI TANADA
TALUK AND DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR-586113
2. SANJU S/O ISHWAR PAWAR
AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: COOLIE
R/O KOUJALAGI TANADA
TALUK AND DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR-586113
Digitally signed by 3. MANOHAR S/O ISHWAR PAWAR
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI AGE: 25 YEARS
Location: HIGH OCCUPATION: COOLIE
COURT OF R/O KOUJALAGI TANADA
KARNATAKA
TALUK AND DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR-586113
4. RAVI S/O ISHWAR PAWAR
AGE: 25 YEARS
OCCUPATION: COOLIE
R/O KOUJALAGI TANADA
TALUK AND DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR-586113
5. SMT. KAVITHA W/O RAVI PAWAR
AGE: 25 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1844
CRL.P No. 202121 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/O KOUJALAGI TANADA
TALUK AND DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR-586113
6. SMT. LALITHA W/O MANOHAR PAWAR
AGE: 20 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O KOUJALAGI TANADA
TALUK AND DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR-586113
7. SMT. KAVITHA W/O DILIP RATHOD
AGE: 26 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O KOUJALAGI TANADA
TALUK AND DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR-586113
8. SMT. SAVITHA W/O ISHWAR PAWAR
AGE: 25 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O KOUJALAGI TANADA
TALUK AND DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR-586113
9. SMT. KESHLABAI W/O ISHWAR PAWAR
AGE: 50 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O KOUJALAGI TANADA
TALUK AND DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR-586113
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRAKASH JADHAV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GANDHI CHOWK PS
VIJAYAPUR. R/BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI-585101
2. VITHAL S/O UMMALU RATHOD
@ UMMAJI RATHOD
AGE: 65 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1844
CRL.P No. 202121 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/O KOUJALAGI TANDA
TQ: AND DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586113
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. VIJAYA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF
CR.P.C (OLD), U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING OF CRIMINAL CASE NO.4321
OF 2015, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE LD. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM, VIJAYAPUR FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 143, 147, 323, 324, 326, 504 AND 506 R/W 149 OF
IPC AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the judgment
dated 15.07.2019 passed in C.C.No.4321/2015 by the I-
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Vijayapura (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Trial Court'), whereby the Trial Court
convicted the accused/petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 326, 504
and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. Since the offence under
Section 326 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1844
HC-KAR
or with imprisonment for either description for a term
which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to
pay fine, the Trial Court has no power to impose maximum
sentence for the said offence. As such, the Trial Court
referred the matter to the Principal Senior Civil Judge and
CJM, Vijayapura for further action, acting under Section
325 (1) of Cr.P.C. and directed the accused to appear
before the said Court. Subsequently, the
petitioners/accused appeared before the Principal Senior
Civil Judge and CJM, Vijayapura for few dates and later
they remained absent. Hence, NBW was issued against
them by the said Court. In the meantime, the
accused/petitioners and respondent No.2 herein i.e., the
injured complainant, amicably settled their dispute by
intervention of the elders and well wishers since all of
them are relatives. As such they filed this petition to set-
aside the conviction judgment passed by the Trial Court
and to quash the proceedings against them pending before
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1844
HC-KAR
the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Vijayapura, by
permitting them to compound the offences.
2. Today the learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned counsel for respondent No.2 jointly filed an
application under Section 359(2) of BNSS, 2023 to
compound the offences and to quash the conviction order
of the Trial Court and the proceedings in Prl. Senior Civil
Judge and CJM, Vijayapura. In the application they have
stated that they belong to same village and community
and settled the dispute amicably and presently living
peacefully. All the accused persons and the
complainant/respondent No.2 have affixed their signatures
in the application. No doubt the Trial Court has convicted
the accused for the aforementioned offences and presently
referred the matter for imposing the punishment before
the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Vijayapura.
However, the Trial Court has not imposed any sentence to
the accused for any of the offence they have charged, as
such, further proceedings is pending before the Principal
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1844
HC-KAR
Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Vijayapura. In such
circumstance, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan reported in
2019 5 SCC 688, held at paragraph No.15 as follows:
"15. 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:
15.1. 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;
15.2. 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;
15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be
exercised for the offences under the special
statutes like the 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;
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1844
HC-KAR
15.4. 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/delicate 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 paras 29.6
and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder
Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6
SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read
harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the
circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5 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 impact on society, on the ground
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1844
HC-KAR
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."
3. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ramgopal and another v/s State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in (2022) 14 SCC 531 held in paragraph Nos.12 and
13 as under:
"12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to
the nature of the offence and the fact that parties
have amicably settled their dispute and the victim
has willingly consented to the nullification of
criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings
in exercise of its inherent powers under Section
482CrPC, even if the offences are non-
compoundable. The High Court can indubitably
evaluate the consequential effects of the offence
beyond the body of an individual and thereafter
adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the
felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker
with or paralyse the very object of the
administration of criminal justice system.
13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings
involving non-heinous offences or where the
offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature,
can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial
has already been concluded or appeal stands
dismissed against conviction. Handing out
punishment is not the sole form of delivering
justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is
always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1844
HC-KAR
saying, that the cases where compromise is struck
post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise
such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the
circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion
in which the compromise has been arrived at, and
with due regard to the nature and seriousness of
the offence, besides the conduct of the accused,
before and after the incidence. The touchstone for
exercising the extra-ordinary power under Section
482 CrPC would be to secure the ends of justice.
There can be no hard-and-fast line constricting the
power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A
restrictive construction of inherent powers under
Section 482 CrPC may lead to rigid or specious
justice, which in the given facts and circumstances
of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On
the other hand, in cases where heinous offences
have been proved against perpetrators, no such
benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously
observed by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors
vs. State of Punjab & Ors and Laxmi Narayan
(Supra)."
4. Collocating the findings of the Hon'ble Apex
court in the above judgments to the facts and
circumstance of this case, since the dispute involved in
this case is purely private in nature, the same would not
effect the society at large, the parties are living peacefully
by settling their disputes amicably and the petitioners
have no antecedents, I am of the considered view that the
application filed by the parties is liable to be allowed.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1844
HC-KAR
Accordingly, the parties are permitted to compound the
offences. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The conviction order dated 15.07.2019
passed in C.C.No.4321/2015 by I Addl. Civil
Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura is hereby
set-aside and the petitioners/accused are
acquitted for the charges leveled against
them.
(iii) Consequently, further proceedings against
the petitioners/accused in C.C.No.4321/
2015, pending before the Principal Senior
Civil Judge and CJM, Vijayapura, is hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SWK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
CT-BH
