Karnataka High Court
Shri Thimalapurada Rajpeer S/O Mahamad … vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2026
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4799
CRL.P No. 102652 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102652 OF 2024
(482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI THIMALAPURADA RAJPEER
S/O MAHAMAD ISHAQ,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSMAN,
R/O. 1ST WARD, URAMMA TEMPLE, HADAGALI,
HADAGALI TOWN, TQ. HOOVINAHADAGALI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583219.
2. SMT. MABUNNI W/O. THIMLAPURA MAHAMAD
ISHAQSAB, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O. 1ST WARD, URAMMA TEMPLE,
HADAGALI, HADAGALI TOWN,
TQ. HOOVINAHADAGALI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583219.
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
3. SMT. NASREENTAJ W/O. HASSAIN N.,
RUDRAYYA KALMATH
Location: High Court AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: STATE GOVT EMPLOYEE,
of Karnataka, Dharwad
Bench R/O. SDA TP HADAGALI, HADAGALI TOWN,
TQ. HOOVINAHADAGALI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583219.
4. SHRI THIMLAPURADA MAHAMAD ISHAQSAB,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSMAN,
R/O. 1ST WARD, URAMMA TEMPLE,
HADAGALI, HADAGALI TOWN,
TQ. HOOVINAHADAGALI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583219.
5. SMT. ROHINTAJ W/O. H. ASHEEF,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4799
CRL.P No. 102652 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. BEHIND MASZID, MARIYAMMANAHALLI,
TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583222.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ROSHAN SAHEB CHABBI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH HADAGALI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580001.
2. SMT. THIMLAPURA MABUNNI W/O. T. RAJPEER,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. 1ST WARD, URAMMA TEMPLE,
HADAGALI, HADAGALI TOWN,
TQ. HOOVINAHADAGALI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583219.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI S. S. BETURMATH, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.528 OF
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
IN C.C.NO.58/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, HOOVINAHADAGALLI, FOR THE COMMISSION OF THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.498A, 323, 504, 506 OF
IPC, 1860 AND FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.3
AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4799
CRL.P No. 102652 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a joint
application under Section 528 read with Section 359 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231, contending that the
parties have amicably settled the dispute and the matter is
predominantly private in nature and does not seriously affect the
society. Therefore, prays to quash the proceedings by allowing
the application filed in this regard.
2. The offence alleged in the present case are under
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Both the petitioners and the respondents are present
before the Court and have filed a joint application duly signed by
them. The learned counsels appearing for both sides have also
affixed their respective signatures on the said application.
1
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS, 2023’
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4799
CRL.P No. 102652 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners places
reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Ramgopal and Another vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh2, and another decision in the case of Narinder Singh
and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another3, in this regard,
wherein at paragraph Nos.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 it is 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 recognized. 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 the Code and
proceedings are quashed. Contours of these powers were2
2021 SCC Online SC 834
3
(2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4799
CRL.P No. 102652 of 2024HC-KAR
described by this Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana4
which has been followed and further explained/elaborated
in so many cases thereafter, which are taken note of in
the discussion that follows hereinafter.
9. At the same time, one has to keep in mind the subtle
distinction between the power of compounding of offences
given to the Court under Section 320 of the Code and
quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction conferred upon it under
Section 482 of the Code. Once, it is found that
compounding is permissible only if a particular offence is
covered by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code and
the Court in such cases is guided solitarily and squarely by
the compromise between the parties, insofar as power of
quashing under Section 482 of the Code is concerned, it is
guided by the material on record as to whether the ends
of justice would justify such exercise of power, although
the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of
indictment. Such a distinction is lucidly explained by a
three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab5. Lodha, J. speaking for the Court, explained the
difference between the two provisions in the following
manner: (SCC pp. 340-41, paras 57 & 59)“57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings
on the ground of settlement between an offender
and victim is not the same thing as compounding of
offence. They are different and not interchangeable.
4
(2003) 4 SCC 675
5
(2012) 10 SCC 303
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4799
CRL.P No. 102652 of 2024HC-KAR
Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of
offences given to a court under Section 320 is
materially different from the quashing of criminal
proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences,
power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the
provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is
guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the
other hand, the formation of opinion by the High
Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the
material on record as to whether the ends of justice
would justify such exercise of power although the
ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal
of indictment.
59. B.S.Joshi6, Nikhil Merchant7, Manoj Sharma8
and Shiji9 do illustrate the principle that the High
Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or
complaint in exercise of its inherent power under
Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not
limit or affect the powers of the High Court under
Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal
proceedings in B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj
Sharma and Shiji this Court has compounded the
non-compoundable offences indirectly? We do not
think so. There does exist the distinction between
6
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675
7
Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 677
8
Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1
9
Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4799
CRL.P No. 102652 of 2024
HC-KAR
compounding of an offence under Section 320 and
quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in
exercise of inherent power under Section 482. The
two powers are distinct and different although the
ultimate consequence may be the same viz. acquittal
of the accused or dismissal of indictment.”
10. Apart from narrating the interplay of Section 320
and Section 482 of the Code in the manner aforesaid, the
Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab10 also described the
extent of power under Section 482 of the Code in
quashing the criminal proceedings in those cases where
the parties had settled the matter although the offences
are not compoundable. In the first instance it was
emphasized that the power under Section 482 of the Code
is not to be resorted to, if there is specific provision in the
Code for redressal of the grievance of an aggrieved party.
It should be exercised very sparingly and should not be
exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in
any other provision of the Code. The Court also
highlighted that in different situations, the inherent power
may be exercised in different ways to achieve its ultimate
objective. Formation of opinion by the High Court before it
exercises inherent power under Section 482 on either of
the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of
any court, or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine
qua non.
10
(2012) 10 SCC 303
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4799
CRL.P No. 102652 of 2024
HC-KAR
11. As to under what circumstances the criminal
proceedings in a non-compoundable case be quashed
when there is a settlement between the parties, the Court
provided the following guidelines: (Gian Singh case, SCC
pp. 340-41, para 58)
“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal
proceeding having regard to the facts that the
dispute between the offender and the victim has
been settled although the offences are not
compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,
continuation of criminal proceedings will be an
exercise in futility and justice in the case demands
that the dispute between the parties is put to an end
and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice
being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes
are acts which have harmful effect on the public and
consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and
threatens the well-being of the society and it is not
safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the
victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the
victim has been paid compensation, yet certain
crimes have been made compoundable in law, with
or without the permission of the court. In respect of
serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. or
other offences of mental depravity under IPC or
offences of moral turpitude under special statutes,
like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that
capacity, the settlement between the offender and
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4799
CRL.P No. 102652 of 2024
HC-KAR
the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However,
certain offences which overwhelmingly and
predominantly bear civil flavor having arisen out of
civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership
or such like transactions or the offences arising out
of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or
the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to
the victim and the offender and the victim have
settled all disputes between them amicably,
irrespective of the fact that such offences have not
been made compoundable, the High Court may
within the framework of its inherent power, quash
the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR
if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement,
there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being
convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of
justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative
and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own
facts and no hard-and-fast category can be
prescribed.”
12. Thereafter, the Court summed up the legal position
in the following words: (Gian Singh case, SCC pp. 342-43,
para 61)
“61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the
High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or an
FIR or a complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4799
CRL.P No. 102652 of 2024
HC-KAR
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 guidelines 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 flavor stand on a different footing for the
purposes of quashing, particularly the offences
arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4799
CRL.P No. 102652 of 2024
HC-KAR
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 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 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.”
The Court in Gian Singh case was categorical that in
respect of serious offences or other offences of mental
depravity or offence of merely dacoity under special
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4799
CRL.P No. 102652 of 2024
HC-KAR
statute, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servant while working in
that capacity. The mere settlement between the parties
would not be a ground to quash the proceedings by the
High Court and inasmuch as settlement of such heinous
crime cannot have imprimatur of the Court.”
5. Considering the factors that the dispute between the
parties is predominantly private in nature and that both the
parties have amicably settled the matter, allowing the
compromise petition would not have any serious impact on the
society. Both the parties have agreed to live peacefully.
Therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice, the compromise
is accepted. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings are hereby
quashed in terms of the principles of law laid by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the above referred cases. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
a) The petition and the joint application filed
under Section 528 read with Section 359 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are
allowed.
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4799
CRL.P No. 102652 of 2024
HC-KAR
b) Consequently, the FIR in Crime No.207/2023
registered by the Hadagali Police Station for the
offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
for the alleged offences punishable under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 and all further investigation and
proceedings in connection with said case, which
is pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC,
Hoovinahadagalli, in C.C.No.58/2024, are
hereby quashed.
c) Both the parties are hereby cautioned not to
repeat or indulge in any such offence.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
PMP /CT-AN
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 58
[ad_1]
Source link
