K.CHANDRASHEKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Ors.

(BY SRI. PRAMOD M., ADVOCATE) AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY GIRINAGARA P.S. BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU – 560 001.

SHRUTHI R., W/O CHANDRASHEKAR K., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.859, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, KALIDASA NAGARA, HOSAKEREHALLI, BANASHANKARI Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:9882 CRL.P No. 7346 of 2025 HC-KAR 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 PRESENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.24979/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE 32ND ADDL. CJM AT BENGALURU, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S. 436, 307, 109 R/W 34 OF IPC OF GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION, AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHO ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Pramod M, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

2. The petitioner-husband is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.24979/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 436, 307, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the husband is that he threatened the wife pouring petrol that he - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:9882 CRL.P No. 7346 of 2025 HC-KAR would set her ablaze. A perusal at the wound certificate would indicate that the injury sustained by the complainant is simple in nature.

The dispute is between the husband and the wife. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties to the lis have settled the dispute among themselves and have filed a Settlement Memo along with the affidavits. The Settlement Memo reads as follows: "The Complainant has filed a complaint against the petitioner for offence punishable under section 307, 436, 109 R/w 34 of Cr.No.114/2022, later converted to C.C.No.24979/2023 pending on the file of 32nd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru. IPC which was registered Thereafter the Petitioner has filed petition before this Hon'ble Court U/s 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quash the proceedings in C.C.No.24979/2023. The Petitioner submits that, the Petitioner and the Complainant are the husband and wife they have settled their dispute amicably out of court in the presence of well-wisher, relatives and family friends. In view of the settlement the Petitioner prays this Hon'ble Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.24979/2023 pending on the file of 32nd ACJM, Bengaluru, in the interest of justice. " - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:9882 CRL.P No. 7346 of 2025 HC-KAR

The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF M.P. v. LAXMI NARAYAN, (2019) 5 SCC 688, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 320, has held 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 involved heinous and serious prosecutions which 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 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 therefore, - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9882 CRL.P No. 7346 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 [Ed.: Para 15.5 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./22/2019 dated 3-4- 2019.] . 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, 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.” ground

In the light of the Settlement Memo having been filed along with affidavits and also the offence being not against (Emphasis supplied) - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:9882 CRL.P No. 7346 of 2025 HC-KAR the State, I deem it appropriate to accept the Settlement Memo and close the proceedings against the petitioner.

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

O R D E R [I] Criminal Petition is disposed. [II] Proceedings in C.C.No.24979/2023 pending before the 32nd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bengaluru, qua the petitioner stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 4 Sl No.: 62