Karnataka High Court
Sri Yallaling S/O Shankar Lali vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 March, 2026
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4603
CRL.P No. 102406 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102406 OF 2025
(482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SRI YALLALING S/O. SHANKAR LALI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE,
R/O. HARUGERI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591220.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SACHCHIDANAND BABAJI PATIL P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH IO MARKET POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580001.
2. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. LATE SHIVAYOGI HIREHOLI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVANT,
Digitally signed
R/O. BAGADAGERI, TQ. KALGHATAGI-581204,
by
MALLIKARJUN DIST. DHARWAD, NOW AT SUBHASH NAGAR,
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH NEAR MARATA MANBUL COLLEGE, BELAGAVI,
Location: High
Court of TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI PIN-590001.
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI AVINASH M. ANGADI, ADV. OF R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
THE BHARATIYA NAGARIKA SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN MARKET P.S.CRIME NO.89/2025 DATED
08.05.2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
115(2), 333, 352, 351(3) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA AND
UNDER SECTIONS 3(2)(va), 3(2)(vii) OF THE SC & ST (PREVENTION
OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2015 AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4603
CRL.P No. 102406 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 20231, seeking to quash the entire
proceedings and praying for the following relief:
“WHEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed that
this Hon’ble Court be pleased to Quash the FIR in
Market PS Crime No.89/2025 dated 08.05.2025
for the offences punishable under Sections
115(2), 333, 352, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita & under Sections 3(2)(va), 3(2)(vii) of
the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) amendment
act 2015 as against the Petitioner/Accused in
interest of justice and equity”.
2. The complainant and the accused are present
before this Court along with their respective learned
counsel. They have submitted a memorandum of
1
Hereinafter referred to as “BNSS, 2023”
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4603
CRL.P No. 102406 of 2025HC-KAR
compromise petition under Section 359(1) read with Section
528 of BNSS, 2023, stating that they have amicably settled
the matter. The accused has prayed to quash the entire
proceedings, to which the complainant has consented.
Therefore, both the complainant and the accused pray that
the criminal proceedings be quashed in view of the
settlement.
3. Certain offences are alleged under the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
which are non-compoundable.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMGOPAL AND
ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH2 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 & Ors3
elaborating:
2
2021 SCC Online SC 834
3
(2019) 5 SCC 688
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4603
CRL.P No. 102406 of 2025HC-KAR
(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
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.”
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4603
CRL.P No. 102406 of 2025
HC-KAR
(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
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.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4603
CRL.P No. 102406 of 2025
HC-KAR
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
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 & Ors4 and Laxmi
Narayan (Supra).”
4
(2014) 6 SCC 466
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4603
CRL.P No. 102406 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. Further Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ramawatar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh5 in paragraphs
Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20.1 to 20.6 is held as under:
16. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of
special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court
will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The
SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter
acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment
against members of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of
the depressing reality that despite undertaking
several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities
at the hands of upper castes. The Courts have to
be mindful of the fact that the Act has been
enacted keeping in view the express constitutional
safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of
the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of
protecting the members of these vulnerable
communities as well as to provide relief and
rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based
atrocities.
17. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court
that the offence in question, although covered
under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in
nature, or where the alleged offence has not been
committed on account of the caste of the victim, or
where the continuation of the legal proceedings
would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court
can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings.
On similar lines, when considering a prayer for
quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement,
if the Court is satisfied that the underlying
5
(2022) 13 SCC 635
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4603
CRL.P No. 102406 of 2025
HC-KAR
objective of the Act would not be contravened or
diminished even if the felony in question goes
unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is
covered under a ‘special statute’ would not refrain
this Court or the High Court, from exercising their
respective powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.
18. Adverting to the case in hand, we note that the
present Appellant has been charged and convicted
under the unamended Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST
Act7, which was as follows:
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities (1)
Whoever, not being a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,–
xxxx
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in
any place within public view;
19. We may hasten to add that in cases such as the
present, the Courts ought to be even more vigilant
to ensure that the complainant victim has entered
into the compromise on the volition of his/her free
will and not on account of any duress. It cannot be
understated that since members of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe belong to the weaker
sections of our country, they are more prone to
acts of coercion, and therefore ought to be
accorded a higher level of protection. If the Courts
find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief
can be given to the accused party. What factors the
Courts should consider, would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case.
20. Having considered the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case in light of the
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4603
CRL.P No. 102406 of 2025
HC-KAR
aforestated principles, as well as having meditated
on the application for compromise, we are inclined
to invoke the powers under Article 142 and quash
the instant Criminal proceedings with the sole
objective of doing complete justice between the
parties before us. We say so for the reasons that:
20.1 Firstly, the very purpose behind Section
3(1)(x) of the SC/ST is to deter caste-based
insults and intimidations when they are used
with the intention of demeaning a victim on
account of he/she belonging to the Scheduled
Caste/ Scheduled Tribe community. In the
present case, the record manifests that there
was an undeniable pre-existing civil dispute
between the parties. The case of the
Appellant, from the very beginning, has been
that the alleged abuses were uttered solely
on account of frustration and anger over the
pending dispute. Thus, the genesis of the
deprecated incident was the aforestated
civil/property dispute. Considering this
aspect, we are of the opinion that it would not
be incorrect to categorise the occurrence as
one being overarchingly private in nature,
having only subtle undertones of criminality,
even though the provisions of a special
statute have been attracted in the present
case.
20.2 Secondly, the offence in question, for
which the Appellant has been convicted, does
not appear to exhibit his mental depravity.
The aim of the SC/ST Act is to protect
members of the downtrodden classes from
atrocious acts of the upper strata of the
society. It appears to us that although the
Appellant may not belong to the same caste
as the Complainant, he too belongs to the
relatively weaker/backward section of the
society and is certainly not in any better
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4603
CRL.P No. 102406 of 2025
HC-KAR
economic or social position when compared to
the victim. Despite the rampant prevalence of
segregation in Indian villages whereby
members of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe community are forced to
restrict their quartes only to certain areas, it
is seen that in the present case, the Appellant
and the Complainant lived in adjoining
houses. Therefore, keeping in mind the socio-
economic status of the Appellant, we are of
the opinion that the overriding objective of
the SC/ST Act would not be overwhelmed if
the present proceedings are quashed.
20.3 Thirdly, the incident occurred way back
in the year 1994. Nothing on record indicates
that either before or after the purported
compromise, any untoward incident had
transpired between the parties. The State
Counsel has also not brought to our attention
any other occurrence that would lead us to
believe that the Appellant is either a repeat
offender or is unremorseful about what
transpired.
20.4 Fourthly, the Complainant has, on her
own free will, without any compulsion,
entered into a compromise and wishes to
drop the present criminal proceedings against
the accused.
20.5 Fifthly, given the nature of the offence,
it is immaterial that the trial against the
Appellant had been concluded.
20.6 Sixthly, the Appellant and the
Complainant parties are residents of the
same village and live in very close proximity
to each other. We have no reason to doubt
that the parties themselves have voluntarily
settled their differences. Therefore, in order
to avoid the revival of healed wounds, and to
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4603
CRL.P No. 102406 of 2025
HC-KAR
advance peace and harmony, it will be
prudent to effectuate the present settlement.
6. Considering the principles of law laid down as
discussed above, upon perusal of the present complaint on
its face, it appears that the dispute is predominantly a
monetary transaction between the complainant and the
accused, involving the filing of a cheque bounce case.
Therefore, the dispute between the complainant and the
accused is substantially a financial transaction. It is
submitted that the cheque bounce case filed before the
Magistrate Court at Belagavi has also been settled.
7. Therefore, if this compromise petition is accepted
and the petition is allowed, there would be no adverse
effect on the interest of society at large. As the case is
found to be substantially and predominantly private in
nature between the parties, relating to financial
transactions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
compromise petition deserves to be accepted and the entire
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4603
CRL.P No. 102406 of 2025
HC-KAR
criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly,
the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The entire proceedings in FIR in crime
registered by Market PS Crime No.89/2025
dated 08.05.2025 for the offences
punishable under Sections 115(2), 333, 352,
and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
and under Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(vii) of
the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015, as against the
petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed.
iii. The complainant belongs to a Scheduled
Tribe community. Upon lodging the
complaint before the police, she received
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the
Government through the Social Welfare
Department, Belagavi. In view of the
settlement entered into with the accused, as
stated above, the complainant has consented
to return the said compensation amount of
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4603
CRL.P No. 102406 of 2025HC-KAR
Rs.1,00,000/- to the Government.
Accordingly, the complainant is directed to
reimburse the said amount to the
Government of Karnataka through the Social
Welfare Department within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipts of certified
copy of this order.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGEASN /CT-AN
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 70