[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Makabulahmad Riyajahmad Tilavalli vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2026

Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

                                                    -1-
                                                               NC: 2026:KHC-D:4288
                                                          CRL.P No. 103321 of 2023


                          HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                         DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                             BEFORE
                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
                          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103321 OF 2023
                               (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)

                         BETWEEN:

                         1.   MAKABULAHMAD RIYAJAHMAD TILAVALLI,
                              S/O. RIYAJAHMAD TILAVALLI,
                              AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
                              OCCUPATION: DRIVER,
                              R/O. NAGENDRAMATTI,
                              MAIN ROAD, HAVERI,
                              DIST. HAVERI, PIN CODE-581110.

                         2.   RIYAJAHMAD TILAVALLI,
                              S/O. GOUSUSAB TILAVALLI,
                              AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
                              OCCUPATION: DRIVER,
                              R/O. NAGENDRAMATTI,
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
                              MAIN ROAD, HAVERI,
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH                       DIST. HAVERI, PIN CODE-581110.
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
                         3.   BEBIKHUTEJA RIYAJAHMAD TILAVALLI,
                              W/O. RIYAJAHMAD TILAVALLI,
                              AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                              OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD,
                              R/O. NAGENDRAMATTI,
                              MAIN ROAD, HAVERI,
                              DIST. HAVERI, PIN CODE-581110.

                         4.   KHAJAMAINUDDIN RIYAJAHMAD TILAVALLI,
                              S/O. RIYAJAHMAD TILAVALLI,
                              AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
                              OCCUPATION: DRIVER,
                            -2-
                                      NC: 2026:KHC-D:4288
                                 CRL.P No. 103321 of 2023


HC-KAR




     R/O. NAGENDRAMATTI,
     MAIN ROAD, HAVERI,
     DIST. HAVERI, PIN CODE-581110.
                                             ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHRINIVAS KRISHNA NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     HAVERI WOMEN POLICE STATION,
     HAVERI, R/BY S.P.P.,
     HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

2.   SMT. RUHITAJ MAKABULAHMAD TILAVALLI,
     AGED 27 YEARS, PRIVATE WORK,
     R/O. SHIVAYOGESHWAR NAGAR,
     1ST CROSS, HAVERI-581110.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI GIRISH S. HULMANI, ADV. FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF THE CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE
RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.20/2023 PENDING
BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M. AT
HAVERI, AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2023
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., AT
HAVERI, IN C.C.NO.20/2023 DIRECTING TO REGISTER A CASE
AGAINST PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.323, 324, 354, 504, 506 R/W.34 OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE AND ISSUING SUMMONS AGAINST
PETITIONERS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND QUASH THE
COMPLAINT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A PENDING BEFORE THE
COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., AT
HAVERI,   AND    CONSEQUENTLY      QUASH    THE    ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.20/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE
COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, AT
HAVERI AND ETC.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                  -3-
                                                 NC: 2026:KHC-D:4288
                                         CRL.P No. 103321 of 2023


HC-KAR



CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR


                          ORAL ORDER

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 and respondent

No.2/complainant are present before the Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused

Nos.1 to 4, learned counsel for respondent

No.2/complainant and the learned HCGP are present.

3. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C)/528 of Bharatiya

Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for quashing the

entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused

Nos.1 to 4 as per the following reliefs made in the prayer of

the petition:

"PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to,

1. Call for entire records of proceedings in C.C.No.20/2023 pending before the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., at Haveri.

2. Set aside the order dated 15-02-2023 passed by the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge and

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4288

HC-KAR

C.J.M., at Haveri, in C.C.No.20/2023 directing to register a case against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 R/W 34 of Indian Penal Code and issuing summons against petitioners produced at Annexure - C.

3. Quash the complaint produced at Annexure-A pending before the court of Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., at Haveri.

4. Consequently quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.20/2023 pending before the court of Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., at Haveri.

5. Grant such other relief/relief's as this Hon'ble court deems fit to pass in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity.

4. The brief facts of prosecution case are that

respondent No.2/complainant is the wife of accused No.1.

Accused Nos.2 to 4 are father-in-law, mother-in-law and

brother-in-law of respondent No.2/complainant. There is a

matrimonial dispute in the family of the petitioners/accused

Nos.1 to 4 and respondent No.2 leading to the filing of a

complaint before the Police; hence, the FIR is registered for

the offences punishable under Sections 354(B), 506, 34,

504, 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4288

HC-KAR

5. Learned HCGP submits that in view of memo filed

for reporting the compromise between the parties,

appropriate orders may be passed.

6. Respondent No.2/complainant and

petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 have filed a memo for

reporting compromise and they have put their signatures on

the memo along with the signatures of the counsels

appearing on behalf of petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 and

respondent No.2/complainant.

7. Respondent No.2/complainant submitted that

they have now settled the matter amicably and are residing

together in the house; therefore, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant prays to quash

the proceedings by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C/528 of

BNSS, 2023, as the dispute is predominantly a family

dispute and is not of such nature as to affect society.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

RAMGOPAL AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MADHYA

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4288

HC-KAR

PRADESH1 has observed at Paragraph Nos.10 to 13, as

follows:

"10. The compendium of these broad fundamentals structured in more than one judicial precedent, has been recapitulated by another 3-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors2 elaborating:

(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;

(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; (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;

(4) Xxx xxx xxx (5) While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the

2021 SCC Online SC 834

(2019) 5 SCC 688

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4288

HC-KAR

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."

(Emphasis Applied)

11. True it is that offences which are 'non- compoundable' cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C. which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of 'compoundable' offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.

12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4288

HC-KAR

the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 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 paralyze 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 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 exra-ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. 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

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4288

HC-KAR

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 & Ors3 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra)."

9. Considering the complaint averments, the

dispute is within the family and has turned into the

registration of complaint for the offences punishable under

the Indian Penal Code and the dispute is predominantly

private in nature and between the family members and now

they have compromised with each other. All the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 submitted that they will look

after the wife of petitioner/accused No.1 in well manner.

Also, respondent No.2/complainant has expressed faith in

the words of the accused. Hence, respondent

No.2/complainant prays to quash the proceedings initiated

against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 enabling them to