- 1 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020032822025

NC: 2026:KHC-D:16041

CRL.P No. 100800 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 24

TH

DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100800 OF 2025

(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

1. SHANKAR BASAVANNEPPA DADDI

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,

R/O. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR

C BLOCK, HAVERI,

TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI-581110.

2. BASAVANNEPPA S/O. MARIBASAPPA

@ MARABASAPPA DADDI

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

OCC: RETIRED PERSON,

R/O. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR

C BLOCK, HAVERI,

TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI-581110.

3. SMT. SULOCHANA W/O. BASAVANNEPPA DADDI

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,

R/O. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR

C BLOCK, HAVERI,

TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI-581110.

4. SHANKAR

S/O. BASANAGOUDA KUDAPALI @ KUPPELUR

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,

R/O. KUDAPALI, TQ. RATTIHALLI,

DIST. HAVERI-581116.

5. SHIVU @ SHIVARAJ NAGAPPA DADDI

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,

- 2 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020032822025

NC: 2026:KHC-D:16041

CRL.P No. 100800 of 2025

R/O. BELAGAVI TQ. SAVANUR,

DIST: HAVERI-581118.

… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD

THROUGH WOMEN PS,

HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110.

2. SMT. SUNITA W/O. SHANKAR DADDI

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,

R/O. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR

C BLOCK, HAVERI

TQ. AND DIST: HAVERI-581110.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVAR, HCGP FOR R1,

SRI RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C .

528 OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3, 6 AND 8 IN SC

NO.111/2023 (HAVERI WOMAN P.S. IN CRIME NO.0068/202 2)

FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147 ,

376(2)(N), 420, 323, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, PENDI NG ON

THE FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AND

FTSC-I, HAVERI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUIT Y.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 3 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020032822025

NC: 2026:KHC-D:16041

CRL.P No. 100800 of 2025

ORAL ORDER

PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

Heard Sri.Vidyashankar G.Dalawai, learned counsel

for the petitioners, Sri.Praveena Y.Devareddiyavar., learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1–S tate

and Sri.Raghavendra A.Purohit., learned counsel for

respondent No.2. The petitioners and de facto complainant

are present.

2. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 8

have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking to

quash the entire proceedings in S.C.No.111/2023, pending

on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions

Court, FTSC-I, Haveri arising out of Crime No.68/2022 of

Haveri Woman Police Station registered for offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 376(2)(n), 420, 323,

504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Pen al

Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). Now, the petitioners and de

facto complainant have amicably resolved their disputes.

- 4 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020032822025

NC: 2026:KHC-D:16041

CRL.P No. 100800 of 2025

3. In view of settlement arrived at between the

parties, the petitioners and respondent No.2- de facto

complainant have filed a compromise petition under

Section 359 of BNSS, 2023 for compounding of offence s

alleged against the petitioners. The contents of compromise

petition read as under:

“The Petitioners and 2nd Respondent humbly

submits as follows:-

1. The Respondent No. 2/ Complainant lodged a

complaint against the above the petitioners with fa lse

allegations. Based on complaint, the respondent pol ice

have registered FIR on the same day in Crime No.

0068/2022 for the offences pun'shable under section s

376(N), 420, 323, 324, 504, 506 R/w 34 of IPC. Further,

the respondent No. 1 police has drop out the charge

sheet against the accused Nos. 4, 5, 7 & 9 and filed the

charge sheet against the petitioners.

2. Based on the aforesaid charge sheet the sessions court

has taken cognizance against the petitioners for th e

aforesaid offences and registered C.C. No. 18472/20 23

and further it was committed as S.C. No. 111/2023

pending on the file of Additional District and Sessions

Judge, FTSC-I, Haveri.

. It is submitted that due to intervention of well-whishes

of both parties, today without any force or coercion or

pressure of others, voluntarily the 2nd respondent

appeared by his advocate due to settled the matter out of

court stating that, the allegations. 1

made in the complaint are false and not true the 20

respondent is ready to withdraw her complaint. There is

- 5 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020032822025

NC: 2026:KHC-D:16041

CRL.P No. 100800 of 2025

no any pressure from anybody and it is his own decision

to withdraw the case against petitioners herein.

4. Wherefore it is humbly prayed that, due to above said

COMPROMISE between petitioners and 2nd respondent

herein, please to accept compromise between the par ties

and be please to quash entire criminal proceedings

registered in S.C. No. 111/2023 (Crime No. 68/2022

Haveri Women PS) pending on the file of Additional

District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Haveri for the

offences punishable under sections 376(N), 420, 323 ,

324, 504, 506 R/w 34 of IPC in so far as the petitioners

are concerned in the interest of justice and equity. ”

4. In support of the compromise petition, the

petitioners as well as the de facto complainant filed their

affidavits. The contents of Affidavits reads as under;

“Herein I Sunita W/o Shankar Daddi, Aged about

39 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: Basaveshwar Nagar C

Block, Haveri, Tq & Dist: Haveri 581110, today at

Dharwad, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as

follows:-

1) I am 2nd respondent in the above said criminal

petition. I know the facts of the case. Hence I am

swearing this affidavit.

2) I state that, I filed the complaint against the

petitioners before Haveri Women PS. Based on the ab ove

complaint, the respondent police have registered FIR on

the same day in Crime No. 0068/2022 for the offence s

punishable under sections 376(N), 420, 323, 324, 50 4,

506 R/w 34 of IPC. Further, the respondent No. 1 po lice

has drop out the charge sheet against the accused N os.

4, 5, 7 & 9 and filed the charge sheet against the

petitioners.

3) Based on the aforesaid charge sheet the Sessions

Court has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the

- 6 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020032822025

NC: 2026:KHC-D:16041

CRL.P No. 100800 of 2025

aforesaid offences and registered C.C. No. 18472/20 23

and further it was committed as S.C. No. 111/2023

pending on the file of Additional District and Sessions

Judge, FTSC-I, Haveri

4) I state that the grounds urged in the accompanyi ng

compromise petition may kindly be read as part and

parcel of this affidavit.

5) I state that para No. 1 to 4 of Compromise petition are

true and correct of my knowledge and belief, true a nd

correct. It is my own decision to withdraw the case

against the petitioners without any pressure.

WHEREFORE this Hon'ble High Court is please to

allow the accompanying application and quash entire

criminal proceedings in S.C. No. 111/2023 (Crime No .

68/2022 Haveri Women PS) pending on the file of

Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Haveri for

the offences punishable under sections 376(N), 420,

323, 324, 504, 506 R/w 34 of IPC in so far as the

petitioners are concerned in the interest of justice.

5. Learned counsels for the petitioners,

respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1-

State are present and submit that, in view of the

compromise arrived at between the parties, the Court may

accept the compromise petition and quash the proceedings.

6. Perused the material available on record.

7. Perused the complaint, charge-sheet and

compromise petition. The allegations made in the complaint

- 7 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020032822025

NC: 2026:KHC-D:16041

CRL.P No. 100800 of 2025

clearly shows that there was a dispute between the

complainant and the petitioner/accused persons and the

same is settled as per the advice of the elders of both

family without any compulsion or coercion. Therefor e,

continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners is

not at all necessary and that would be nothing but an

abuse of process of law. Since, the alleged offence s are

non-compoundable in nature, the accused persons pra yed

to quash the entire proceedings and permit to compo und

the offences. As the matter is settled between the parties,

it is just and necessary to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to

quash the entire proceedings.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr

reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 at Para Nos.31 to 35 has

held as under:

"31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum

up and lay down the following principles by which

the High Court would be guided in giving

adequate treatment to the settlement between

the parties and exercising its power under Section

- 8 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020032822025

NC: 2026:KHC-D:16041

CRL.P No. 100800 of 2025

482 of the Code while accepting the settlement

and quashing the proceedings or refusing to

accept the settlement with direction to continue

with the criminal proceedings:

(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the

Code is to be distinguished from the power which

lies in the Court to compound the offences under

Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section

482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent

power to quash the criminal proceedings even in

those cases which are not compoundable, where

the parties have settled the matter between

themselves. However, this power is to be

exercised sparingly and with caution.

(II) When the parties have reached the

settlement and on that basis petition for quashing

the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding

factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to

form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two

objectives.

(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those

prosecutions which involve 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. Similarly, for offences alleged to have

been committed under special statute 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.

(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having

overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil

character, particularly those arising out of

- 9 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020032822025

NC: 2026:KHC-D:16041

CRL.P No. 100800 of 2025

commercial transactions or arising out of

matrimonial relationship or family disputes should

be quashed when the parties have resolved their

entire disputes among themselves.

(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is

to examine as to whether the possibility of

conviction is remote and bleak and continuation

of criminal cases would put the accused to great

oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice

would be caused to him by not quashing the

criminal cases.

(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in

the category of heinous and serious offences and

therefore is to be generally treated as crime

against the society and not against the individual

alone. 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

proving 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. Medical

report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim

can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis

of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can

examine as to whether there is a strong

possibility of conviction or the chances of

conviction are remote and bleak. In the former

case it can refuse to accept the settlement and

quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the

later case it would be permissible for the High

Court to accept the plea compounding the offence

based on complete settlement between the

parties. At this stage, the Court can also be

swayed by the fact that the settlement between

- 10 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020032822025

NC: 2026:KHC-D:16041

CRL.P No. 100800 of 2025

the parties is going to result in harmony between

them which may improve their future relationship.

(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power

under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of

settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where

the settlement is arrived at immediately after the

alleged commission of offence and the matter is

still under investigation, the High Court may be

liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the

criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because

of the reason that at this stage the investigation

is still on and even the charge sheet has not been

filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is

framed but the evidence is yet to start or the

evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court

can show benevolence in exercising its powers

favourably, but after prima facie assessment of

the circumstances/material mentioned above. On

the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is

almost complete or after the conclusion of the

evidence the matter is at the stage of argument,

normally the High Court should refrain from

exercising its power under Section 482 of the

Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in

a position to decide the case finally on merits and

to come a conclusion as to whether the offence

under Section 307 IPC is committed or not.

Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is

already recorded by the trial court and the matter

is at the appellate stage before the High Court,

mere compromise between the parties would not

be a ground to accept the same resulting in

acquittal of the offender who has already been

convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved

under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already

recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there

is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of

such a crime.

32. After having clarified the legal position in the

manner aforesaid, we proceed to discuss the case

at hand.

- 11 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020032822025

NC: 2026:KHC-D:16041

CRL.P No. 100800 of 2025

33. In the present case, FIR No.121 dated

14.7.2010 was registered under Sections 307,

324, 323, 34 IPC. Investigation was completed,

whereafter challan was presented in the court

against the petitioner herein. Charges have also

been framed; the case is at the stage of recording

of evidence. At this juncture, parties entered into

compromise on the basis of which petition under

Section 482 of the Code was filed by the

petitioners namely the accused persons for

quashing of the criminal proceedings under the

said FIR. As per the copy of the settlement which

was annexed along with the petition, the

compromise took place between the parties on

12.7.2013 when respectable members of the

Gram Panchayat held a meeting under the

Chairmanship of Sarpanch. It is stated that on the

intervention of the said persons/Panchayat, both

the parties were agreed for compromise and have

also decided to live with peace in future with each

other. It was argued that since the parties have

decided to keep harmony between the parties so

that in future they are able to live with peace and

love and they are the residents of the same

village, the High Court should have accepted the

said compromise and quash the proceedings.

34. We find from the impugned order that the

sole reason which weighed with the High Court in

refusing to accept the settlement between the

parties was the nature of injuries. If we go by

that factor alone, normally we would tend to

agree with the High Court's approach. However,

as pointed out hereinafter, some other attendant

and inseparable circumstances also need to be

kept in mind which compel us to take a different

view.

35. We have gone through the FIR as well which

was recorded on the basis of statement of the

complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the

complainant was attacked allegedly by the

accused persons because of some previous

dispute between the parties, though nature of

- 12 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020032822025

NC: 2026:KHC-D:16041

CRL.P No. 100800 of 2025

dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a

very pertinent statement appears on record viz.,

"respectable persons have been trying for a

compromise up till now, which could not be

finalized". This becomes an important aspect. It

appears that there have been some disputes

which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the

accused on the complainant. In this context when

we find that the elders of the village, including

Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the

parties have not only buried their hatchet but

have decided to live peacefully in future, this

becomes an important consideration. The

evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not

even started. In view of compromise between

parties, there is a minimal chance of the

witnesses coming forward in support of the

prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries

can still be established by producing the doctor as

witness who conducted medical examination, it

may become difficult to prove as to who caused

these injuries. The chances of conviction,

therefore, appear to be remote. It would,

therefore, be unnecessary to drag these

proceedings. We, taking all these factors into

consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that

the compromise between the parties be accepted

and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR

No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police

Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be

quashed. We order accordingly."

9. The learned counsel for petitioners also relied

upon the judgment of co-ordinate Bench in Criminal

Petition No.102688/2025 (Dharwad Bench) disposed on

14.10.2025, wherein, the co-ordinate bench at para-5 held

as under:

- 13 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020032822025

NC: 2026:KHC-D:16041

CRL.P No. 100800 of 2025

“In view of the said settlement, the proceedings

against the petitioner in S.C.No.42/2024 pending

on the file of the Principal District and Sessions

Judge, Gadag registered for the offence

punishable under Section 306 of IPC are

quashed.”

10. On perusal of the aforesaid decision, judgment

of co-ordinate bench and the facts and circumstances and

the material available on record, it appears that respondent

No.2 had filed the case against the petitioners wit h

misconception of facts and in a fit of anger. Now

respondent No.2 has realized her mistake and she is

intending to take back her case registered against the

petitioners on the advice of elders of both the fam ily as

they are relatives. In this context, the Court finds that, the

elders of the village and their family intervened in the

matter and parties have settled their disputes and have

decided to live peacefully in future. This becomes an

important consideration.

11. In view of the compromise held between the

parties, further investigation of the case would not be arise

- 14 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020032822025

NC: 2026:KHC-D:16041

CRL.P No. 100800 of 2025

and in case if investigation is completed and charge-sheet

is filed, even at that juncture also, there is a mi nimal

chance of the witnesses coming forward in support o f the

prosecution case. Even though the role attributed t o the

accused persons is not clear and the de-facto complainant

has not stated in clear terms that there was direct nexus to

the accused persons. Thus, the chances of convictio n,

therefore, appear to be very remote. It would, therefore,

be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. When the Court

takes all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the

Court is of the opinion that the compromise between the

parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings initiated

against the accused persons are liable to be quashed.

12. Hence, the compromise petition is accepted. In

view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and

in view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions cited

supra, it is necessary to permit the parties to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners. Hence, the Cou rt

proceeds to pass the following:

- 15 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020032822025

NC: 2026:KHC-D:16041

CRL.P No. 100800 of 2025

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed.

The criminal proceedings pending in

S.C.No.111/2023, pending on the file of learned Principal

District and Sessions Court and FTSC-I, Haveri arising out

of Crime No.68/2022 of Haveri Woman Police Station

registered for offences punishable under Sections 1 43,

147, 376(2)(n), 420, 323, 504 and 506 read with Sec tion

149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is hereby quashed.

Pending I.A.s, if any, stand disposed of as they do

not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

(VENKATESH NAIK T)

JUDGE

AM/-

CT:GSM

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 149