Karnataka High Court
Vundavalli Venkata Narayana Choudri vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540
CRL.P No. 200773 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200773 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. VUNDAVALLI VENKATA NARAYANA CHOUDRI
S/O VUNDAVALLI VEERA VENKAT SURYA SATYA
NARAYAN MURTHY
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: PVT SERVICE
R/O 201, RELIANCE KAMAL APARTMENT,
GOUTAMI ENCLAVE, KONDAPUR,
TQ: SERLINGAMPALLI, DIST:RANGAREDDY
2. VUNDAVALLI ANNAPURANA
W/O VUNDAVALLI VEERA VENKAT SURYA SATYA
NARAYAN MURTHY
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HH WORK
R/O 201, RELIANCE KAMAL APARTMENT,
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA GOUTAMI ENCLAVE, KONDAPUR,
DATTATRAYA TQ: SERLINGAMPALLI, DIST:RANGAREDDY
UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 3. VUNDAVALLI VEERA VENKAT SURYA SATYA
KARNATAKA
NARAYAN MURTHY
S/O VUNDAVALLI SATYA NARAYAN
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O 201, RELIANCE KAMAL APARTMENT,
GOUTAMI ENCLAVE, KONDAPUR,
TQ: SERLINGAMPALLI, DIST:RANGAREDDY
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND PATIL AND
SRI VARUN PATIL, ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540
CRL.P No. 200773 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
TURVIHAL POLICE STATION,
TURVIHALI, BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALABURAGI-585107.
2. SMT. USHARANI
W/O VUNDAVALLI VENKATA
NARAYANA CHOUDRI
AGED: 27 YEARS, OCC: PVT SERVICE,
NOW R/O C/O A NAGESHWAR RAO
2ND FLOOR, AVG BUILDING,
BESIDES REDDY SCHOOL,
GANGANAGAR, SINDHNOOR,
DIST: RAICHUR-584105
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHBUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1
SRI.MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P FILED IS U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), U/S 528
OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH
THE COMPLAINT, CHARGESHEET AND FIR IN CRIME NO.
57/2024, OF TURVIHAL POLICE STATION, SINDHANUR, FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A), 323, 504, 354, AND 34
OF IPC R/W SEC.3, 4 AND 6 OF DP ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540
CRL.P No. 200773 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in
Crime No.57/2024, registered by Turvihal Police Station,
for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323,
354 and 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6
of Dowry Prohibition Act, (for brevity “D.P. Act“), presently
pending on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Maski,
Raichur.
2. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties
filed IA.No.1/2026 under Section 359 r/w Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, seeking permission to
compound the offences and to quash the proceedings. The
application reads as follows:
“The petitioners and respondent No.2 have
settled the dispute between them under the
below mentioned terms & conditions:
1. That the respondent No.2 in the above
captioned petition has already filed MC
No.45/2024 u/s 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540
CRL.P No. 200773 of 2025HC-KAR
Act for dissolution of Marriage, now that the
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have
agreed to settle the dispute, the parties shall
approach the Jurisdictional court within 15 days
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order seeking Consent Divorce after conversion
of the petition into petition u/s 13(b) of the
Hindu Marriage Act accordingly.
2. That the petitioners have agreed to pay
a sum of Rs.22,50,000/- (Twenty Two Lakhs
Fifty Thousand Only) toward permanent alimony
by way of Demand Draft bearing No.97369 dated
16.02.2026, which is handed over to the
respondent No.2 before this Hon’ble Court. That
in lieu of the payment of permanent alimony, it
is agreed by respondent No.2 that she shall have
no further claims of any kind including
maintenance as against the petitioners in future.
3. The respondent No.2 has agreed to
withdraw the petition filed u/s 12 of the
Domestic Violence Act pending in Crl Misc No.
1360/2024 by producing the copy of the order
passed in the above captioned petition. That the
respondent No.2 further concedes to quash the
prosecution initiated against the petitioners in
C.C.486/2024 pending before Civil Judge and
JMFC Court, Maski.
4. That since there is a dispute between the
parties regarding possession of the original
documents such as Marks Card, Passport,
Certificates etc, the respondent no.2 is at liberty
to seek/file application before the appropriate
authority for issuance of documents by
producing the copy the order passed in the
above captioned petition.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540
CRL.P No. 200773 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. That in view of the compromise entered
between the parties, the application filed seeking
quashing of proceedings, the alleged offences
are not heinous and not against the society at
large. The compromise will bring peace and
harmony in the life of parties to lis.
6. The above terms are read and explained
to both the parties and without force or coercion
the petitioners and respondent No.2 agree on all
term and conditions have signed the present
application.
7. The allegations made by the petitioners
and respondent No.2 against each other are
agreed to be withdrawn unconditionally.
Wherefore for the terms and conditions
agreed upon the above captioned petition may
kindly be allowed by recording the aforesaid
compromise and compounding the office in the
interest of justice and equity.”
3. The parties to the proceedings are present
before the Court and they have affixed their signatures on
the application by agreeing the terms and conditions
mentioned in the application. The petitioners handed over
the demand draft for a sum of Rs.22,50,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to respondent
No.2 and the same is received by respondent No.2.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540
CRL.P No. 200773 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. The offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-
compoundable in nature. Apparently, the same can be
considered as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi
Narayan reported in 2019 (5) SCC 688 in para No.13 as
under:
“13. 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:
i) 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;
ii) 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
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540
CRL.P No. 200773 of 2025
HC-KAR
private in nature and have a serious
impact on society;
iii) similarly, such power is not to be
exercised for the offences under the
special statutes like 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;
iv) 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 therefore, the
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 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
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540
CRL.P No. 200773 of 2025
HC-KAR
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/delegate 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 paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the
decision of this Court in the case of
Narinder Singh (supra) should be read
harmoniously and to be read as a whole
and in the circumstances stated
hereinabove;
v) 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 impart 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
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540
CRL.P No. 200773 of 2025
HC-KAR
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. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in above case, the offences invoked in this
case are totally private in nature and do not have any
serious impact on the society. In such circumstances, the
petitioners and respondent No.2 are permitted to
compound the offences. Consequently, the proceedings
against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 is liable to be
quashed, since the continuation of proceedings is nothing
but abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to
pass the following;
ORDER
(a) The petition is allowed.
(b) The complaint, charge sheet and FIR against
the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime
No.57/2024, registered by Turvihal Police
Station, for the offences punishable under
Sections 498(A), 323, 354 and 504 r/w Section
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1540
CRL.P No. 200773 of 2025
HC-KAR
34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, (for brevity “D.P. Act“),
presently pending on the file of the Civil Judge
& JMFC Court, Maski, Raichur, is hereby
quashed.
(c) As per condition No.4 of the compromise
application, if any application/request made by
respondent No.2 before the appropriate
authority for issuance of the documents by
placing this order, the concerned authorities
are directed to consider the same in
accordance with law, without any undue delay.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
MSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
