[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Rajkumar And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 26 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1954
CRL.P No. 200638 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200638 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. RAJKUMAR
S/O YAMANAPPA POOJARI
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: WELDER
GOA SHIPYARD LTD.,
R/O KURALAGERA, TQ: YEDRAMI
DIST: KALABURAGI-585325
PRESENTLY R/O. HOUSING BOARD COLONY
NEAR PWD WATER TANK, NEW VADEMA
VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA.
2. GANGABAI
Digitally signed by W/O YAMANAPPA POOJARI
SHIVALEELA AGE: 55 YEARS
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
Location: HIGH
OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVANT
COURT OF R/O KURALAGERA, TQ: YEDRAMI
KARNATAKA DIST: KALABURAGI585 325
PRESENTLY R/O. HOUSING BOARD COLONY
NEAR PWD WATER TANK, NEW VADEMA
VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA.
3. PARVATI
W/O ARJUNA POOJARI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O NADA VILLAGE, TQ: INDI
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586 209.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R S LAGALI., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1954
CRL.P No. 200638 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH YEDRAMI PS. VIJAYAPURA
REPRESENTED BY
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI-585 102.
2. STM. SUNITA
W/O RAJAKUMAR POOJARI
AGE: 31YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O KURALAGERA, TQ: YEDRAMI
DIST: KALABURAGI-585 325
PRESENTLY R/O. MAGANAGERA VILLAGE
TQ: YEDRAMI, DIST: KALABURAGI-585 325.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. A. M. NAGRAL ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C (OLD),
U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
CRIMINAL PETITION AND THEREBY QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.64/2024 OF RESPONDENT PS. FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNIHABLE U/S 323, 498(A), 504, 506 R/W S. 34 OF IPC
LODGED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ALL FURTHER INVESTIGATION ARISING OUT
OF AND THEREFROM AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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, to quash the FIR against the
petitioners in crime No.64/2024, registered by the Yedrami
Police, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A,
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1954
HC-KAR
504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, presently pending on the
file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Jewargi, Kalaburagi.
2. Today, learned counsel for the respective parties
have filed an application under Section 528 read with Section
359 of BNSS, for compounding and quashing the proceedings.
The application is accompanied with the affidavit of petitioner
No.1 himself and on behalf of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and the
affidavit of defacto complainant/respondent No.2. It is stated in
the affidavit that they have amicably settled their matrimonial
dispute.
3. Perused the contents of the affidavits and the
charge sheet materials.
4. The dispute is purely private in nature and not
against the society at large. Though the offence punishable
under Section 498A of IPC is not compoundable in nature, as
per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others,
reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 at paragraph No.15 i.e.,
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1954
HC-KAR
"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;
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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1954
HC-KAR
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
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."
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1954
HC-KAR
5. Collocating the above principles of the Hon'ble Apex
Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, since the
parties have amicably settled their dispute and living
peacefully, they are permitted to compound the offences.
Accordingly, the application filed by the respective parties is
allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The proceedings against the petitioners in crime
No.64/2024, registered by the Yedrami Police,
for the offences punishable under Sections 323,
498A, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC,
presently pending on the file of Civil Judge
(Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Jewargi, Kalaburagi, is
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
THM/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1/CT-BH
