Criminal Petition No. 4166 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15043 CRL.P No. 4166 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2241 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4166 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2241 OF 2022 IN CRL.P No. 4166/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SUNIL AGED 42 YEARS, S/O BABU @ MUNIVENKATAPPA, R/AT NO.144, 2ND CROSS, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 066. Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka 2. JANAKIYAMMA AGED 71 YEARS, W/O MUNIYAPPA, 3RD CROSS, AMBEDKARNAGAR, WHITE FIELD, BENGALURU-560 066. …PETITIONERS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WHITE FIELD POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 066, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15043 CRL.P No. 4166 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2241 of 2022 2. SMT. MUNIYAMMA AGED 61 YEARS, W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, R/A NO. 7TH CROSS, PATTANDURU AGRAHARA, WHITE FIELD, BENGALURU-560 066. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. H. RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G. JAIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.8872/2021 FOR AN OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 120(B), 420, 465, 471, 506, 354, 324 R/W 149 IPC AND ALSO QUASHING THE COGNIZANCE TAKEN ON ANNEXURE-A DATED 27.09.2021 OF WHITE FIELD POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU, IN THE ABOVE CASE. IN CRL.P NO. 2241/2022 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MANJULA AGED 43 YEARS, W/O SUBBAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.24/9, RAMSWAMY COLONY, IMMIDIHALLI, WHITE FIELD, BENGALURU-560 066. 2. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS S/O LATE DODDAPPA, 3. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O NANJAPPA, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15043 CRL.P No. 4166 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2241 of 2022 ...PETITIONERS BOTH THE PETITIONER NO.2 & 3 R/A NO. 7TH CROSS, PATTANDURU AGRAHARA, WHITE FIELD, BENGALURU-560 066. (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WHITE FIELD POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-66. REP. BY GOVT. ADV. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. 2. SMT. MUNIYAMMA AGED 58 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, R/A NO. 7TH CROSS, PATTANDURU AGRAHARA, WHITE FIELD, BENGALURU-560 066. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. H. RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G. JAIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.8872/2021 AND ITS TAKING COGNIZANCE BY THE LEARNED A.C.J.M., BENGALURU IN, BY QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-A CHARGE SHEET DATED 21.03.2021, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15043 CRL.P No. 4166 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2241 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER In both these petitions, petitioners are seeking to quash the entire proceedings pending in C.C.No.8872/2021 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru. 2. Crl.P No.4166/2025 is preferred by accused Nos.2 and 5 and Crl.P No.2241/2022 is preferred by accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 respectively. It is submitted that accused No.1 is no more. 3. On a complaint lodged by Smt.Muniyamma wife of late Munivenkatappa, Crime No.356/2019 was registered at Whitefield Police Station against accused Nos.1 to 7 for offences punishable under Section 506, 120B, 420, 149, 465, 143, 20(B), 471, 354, 324 and 468 of IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15043 CRL.P No. 4166 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2241 of 2022 4. The brief allegations are that the accused with a fraudulent intention conspired with each other and created fake gift deed in respect of property belonging to the complainant bearing Site No.2A Khata No.2 measuring 30 x 36 ft situated at Pattanduru Village. 5. Parties are closely related to each other. An application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is filed by respondent No.2/defacto complainant Smt.Muniyamma seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the matter has been settled out of Court. Joint affidavits are filed in both the petitions by the defacto complainant and accused No.3 – Smt Manjula, signed by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. It is stated that the matter has been compromised and the complainant is not interested to continue the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused persons. 6. Respondent No.2/defacto complainant who is present before the Court submits that since the parties are close relatives they have entered into a settlement and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15043 CRL.P No. 4166 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2241 of 2022 therefore, she has no objection to close the proceedings pending before the trial Court. 7. In Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Apex Court at para Nos.8 and 24 has held as under: "8. We find that there are cases where the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in those offences which are uncompoundable has been recognised. The only difference is that under Section 320(1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has discretionary power to refuse to compound the offence. However, compounding under Section 320(1) of the Code is permissible only in minor offences or in non-serious offences. Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in respect of the offences enumerated in Section 320(2) of the Code, compounding is permissible but it requires the approval of the Court. Insofar as serious offences are concerned, quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise is within the discretionary powers of the High Court. In such cases, the power is exercised under Section 482 of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15043 CRL.P No. 4166 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2241 of 2022 the Code and proceedings are quashed. Contours of these powers were described by this Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, which has been followed and further explained/elaborated in so many cases thereafter, which are taken note of in the discussion that follows hereinafter." "24. The two rival parties have amicably settled the disputes between themselves and buried the hatchet. Not only this, they say that since they are neighbours, they want to live like good neighbours and that was the reason for restoring friendly ties. In such a scenario, should the court give its imprimatur to such a settlement? The answer depends on various incidental aspects which need serious discourse. The legislators have categorically recognized that those offences which are covered by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code are concededly those which not only do not fall within the category of heinous crimes but also which are personal between the parties. Therefore, this provision recognizes where there is a compromise between the parties, the court is to act at the said compromise and quash the proceedings. However, even in respect of such offences not covered within the four corners of Section 320 of the Code, the High Court is given power under Section 482 of the Code to accept the compromise - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15043 CRL.P No. 4166 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2241 of 2022 between the parties and quash the proceedings. The guiding factor is as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, both the ultimate consequences may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. This is so recognized in various judgments taken note of above." 8. In B.S.Joshi and others V. State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the code does not limit or effect powers under Section 482 of Code. 9. The dispute between the offender and victim has been settled. The dispute is predominantly of a civil nature, where the wrong is essentially to the victim and the offender. Hence, this Court is of the view that in continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility as there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted. In The light of the affidavit filed by respondent No.2, no purpose will be served in keeping the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15043 CRL.P No. 4166 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2241 of 2022 proceedings pending before the trial Court. Accordingly, the following:
Decision
ORDER Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.8872/2021 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru is quashed. I.A.No.1/2025 is allowed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40 Ct:ar