Karnataka High Court
Narasimharaju B H @ Narasimhamurthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 May, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:25244
CRL.P No. 7250 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7250 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. NARASIMHARAJU B H @
NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O HULLURAIAH @
CHIKKAHULLURAIAH
NOW AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT T.BEGUR VILLAGE @
POST KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562123
2. NAGARAJU.C @ NAGARAJU
S/O CHANNAPPA
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B NOW AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S R/AT T.BEGUR VILLAGE @ POST
Location: High KASABA HOBLI
Court of
Karnataka NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562123
3. NAVEENKUMAR.B.G @ NAVEENKUMAR
S/O GANGANARASAIAH
NOW AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT T.BEGUR VILLAGE @ POST
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
PIN-562123
4. GEETHALAKSHMI @ GEETHAMMA
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:25244
CRL.P No. 7250 of 2026
HC-KAR
W/O LATE RAJANNA
NOW AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT T.BEGUR VILLAGE @ POST
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TQ,
BENGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562123
AND ALSO R/AT TARABANAHALLI VILLAGE
DODDA BELAVANGAL HOBLI
DODDABALALPURA TALUK
BENGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-561204
5. RATHNAMMA
W/O LINGAPPA @ LINGAIAH
NOW AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT T.BEGUR VILLAGE @ POST
KASABA HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562123
AND ALSO R/AT # 328
10TH A MAIN ROAD
5TH BLOCK , RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALORE CENTRAL
SRIRAMPURM
BENGALORE PIN-560021
6. CHANDRASHEKARA.B.R @ CHANDRASHEKARA
S/O LATE RAJANNA
NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT T.BEGUR VILLAGE @ POST
KASABA HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
PIN-562123
AND ALSO R/AT TARABANAHALLI VILLAGE
DODDA BELAVANGAL HOBLI
DODDABALALPURA TALUK
BENGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, PIN-561204
7. JAGADISH
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:25244
CRL.P No. 7250 of 2026
HC-KAR
S/O LATE LINGAPPA @ LINGAIAH
NOW AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT T.BEGUR VILLAGE @ POST
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TQ.
BENGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562123
AND ASLO R/AT # 328
10TH A MAIN
5TH BLOCK
NEAR ROTARY EYE HOSPITAL
BHUVANESHWARINAGAR
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALORE. PIN-560021
8. NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O RANGAIAH @ DODDARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT T.BEGUR VILLAGE @ POST
KASABA HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562123
9. NARASIMHAMURTHY @ MURTHY
S/O CHANNAPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT T.BEGUR VILLAGE @ POST
KASABA HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562123
10. GANGAMALLAIAH
S/O LATE HULLARIVEAIA
NOW AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT T.BEGUR VILLAGE @ POST
KASABA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TQ,
BENGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562123
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUNIL K. N., ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:25244
CRL.P No. 7250 of 2026
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY NELAMANGALA
RURAL POLICE STATION
AT NELAMANGALA PIN-562123
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALORE PIN-560001
2. SRI.MANUKUMAR.B.T
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT T.BEGUR VILLAGE @ POST
KASABA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TQ,
BENGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562123
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.M. WAHEEDA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. PAWAN KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.658/2016 ARISING OUT OF
CR.NO.98/2016 REGISTERED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT POLICE
IN NELAMANGALA POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER,
PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT
NELAMANGALA, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
143,147,323,324,504,354(B),506,149 OF IPC, ON THE
nd
COMPLAINT BY THE FATHER OF THE 2 RESPONDENT IN SO
FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:25244
CRL.P No. 7250 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri. Sunil K.N., learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Smt. M.M. Waheeda, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, and Sri.
Pawan Kumar S., learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.
No.658/2016 arising out of Crime No.98/2016 registered by
Nelamangala Police Station, pending on the file of the Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 504, 354B, 506 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.1 I.A. No.2/2026 is filed under Sections 320 and 320(4)(b)
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
praying to record the compromise entered into between the
petitioners and respondent No.2, to permit compounding of the
offences, and consequently to quash the impugned
proceedings.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:25244
CRL.P No. 7250 of 2026
HC-KAR
2.2 The application is accompanied by the verifying affidavits
of all the parties. A joint memo dated 19.05.2026 has also been
filed by the respective parties along with the application. The
joint memo discloses that, at the intervention of the elders of
both sides, the parties have resolved their differences and
amicably settled the dispute in order to maintain peace and
cordial relationship. It is further stated that the civil dispute in
O.S. No.390/2018 pending on the file of the I Additional Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, which was the genesis of
the present criminal proceedings, has also been settled.
3. It is submitted that accused No.1 is no more. Accused
Nos.2 to 12 and respondent No.2 are present before the Court.
Respondent No.2 is victim No.3. It is further submitted that
victim Nos.1 and 2 are also no more. When queried by the
Court, the petitioners and respondent No.2 jointly submitted
that they have amicably settled the dispute and are not
intending to pursue the above criminal proceedings, as the
main civil dispute between the parties has already been settled.
The parties further jointly submitted that they have understood
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:25244
CRL.P No. 7250 of 2026
HC-KAR
the contents of the application, the affidavits, and the joint
memo.
4. The said submission is placed on record.
5. The joint memo reads as follows:
“1. It is submitted that on the complaint of the father of the
respondent No.2, 1st respondent police have registered a case
in Crime. No.98/2016 on 06/03/2026 for the offences
punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506
R/w 34 of IPC and thereafter the first respondent Police have
filed a charge sheet against the petitioners for the offence
punishable u/s143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 354(b), 506 R/w
34 of IPC it was numbered as C.C.No.658/2016 on the file of
Hon’ble Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Nelamangala
2. It is submitted that at the intervention of the elders of both
sides have reconciled all the differences between the parties
and compromised the aforesaid disputes in order to bring the
peace between the parties. Accordingly the petitioner No.4, 5,
6 and 7 and another and the 2nd respondent have
compromised their dispute in O.S. No. 390/2018 on the file of
1 Addl. Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C. at Nelamangala and they
by settling all disputes relating to properties as well as the
criminal cases, pursuant to the said compromise, Original Suit
No.390/2018 was disposed of by the Court of the 1 Additional
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Nelamangala and the
petitioners are bound by, shall faithfully abide by the terms
and conditions of the compromise petition as well as the said
Decree passed by the Hon’ble Court and shall extend full
cooperation to Respondent No.2 in terms thereof Hence for the
said reason, deserves to be quashed by the hands of this
Hon’ble Court.
3. In view of the settlement arrived at, the 2nd
respondent/Victim No.3 has no wish to continue the criminal
proceedings initiated by her and he has no objection for
quashing the proceedings against all the petitioners. Since the
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:25244
CRL.P No. 7250 of 2026
HC-KAR
alleged offences are punishable under section U/s sec143, 147,
323, 324, 504, 354(B), 506, 149 R/w 34 of IPC which are non-
compoundable, without permission of the court, this
application is filed seeking permission to compound the above
said offences.
4. The petitioners and the complainant / respondent no.2 have
understood the contents of this application and out of their free
will, volition and without any fear, force, threat, or coercion,
have affixed their signatures to this application.”
6. On perusal of the joint memo and the nature of the
alleged offences, it is seen that, except the offence punishable
under Section 354B of the IPC, all other offences are
compoundable as provided under Section 320 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
6.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab and Another , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 ,has
held that the power of the High Court to quash criminal
proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct
and different from the power conferred upon a criminal court to
compound offences under Section 320 of the Code. It is further
held that the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no
statutory limitation, but the same has to be exercised in
accordance with the guidelines engrafted in such power,
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:25244
CRL.P No. 7250 of 2026
HC-KAR
namely: (i) to secure the ends of justice; or (ii) to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court.
6.2 It is further held that compounding is permissible in
criminal cases having an overwhelmingly and predominantly
civil flavour, arising out of civil disputes or family disputes,
where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and
the parties have resolved the entire dispute amicably. It is
observed that, in such circumstances, the High Court may
quash the criminal proceedings if, in its view, because of the
compromise arrived at between the offender and the victim,
the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and
continuation of the criminal proceedings would result in great
oppression and prejudice to the accused. It is further held that
extreme injustice would be caused if the criminal proceedings
are not quashed despite a full and complete settlement
between the parties.
6.3 For the sake of convenience, the relevant paragraph is
extracted hereunder:
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC:25244
CRL.P No. 7250 of 2026HC-KAR
” 61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the
High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or
complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is
distinct and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences under
Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide
plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be
exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such
power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what
cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or
complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender
and the victim have settled their dispute would depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before exercise
of such power, the High Court must have due regard to
the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed
even though the victim or victim’s family and the
offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are
not private in nature and have a serious impact on
society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim
and the offender in relation to the offences under
special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any
basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different
footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the
offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile,
civil, partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry,
etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically
private or personal in nature and the parties have
resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases,
the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if
in its view, because of the compromise between the
offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case
would put the accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to
him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC:25244
CRL.P No. 7250 of 2026
HC-KAR
complete settlement and compromise with the victim.
In other words, the High Court must consider whether
it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice
to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between the victim and
the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of
justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to
an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in
the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
7. In the light of the above circumstances, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the dispute between the parties has
arisen out of a civil dispute among the family members. This
Court finds no impediment in accepting the joint memo and
permitting compounding of the alleged offences.
8. In the light of the above, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C. No.658/2016 arising out of
Crime No.98/2016 for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 504, 354B, 506
read with Section 149 of the IPC, pending on the
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC:25244
CRL.P No. 7250 of 2026
HC-KAR
file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,
Nelamangala, are hereby quashed.
SD/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47
