Shrikanth v. State of Karnataka - Criminal Petition Quashing BNSS Proceedings

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Issues | Petitioner's Arguments |
| Analysis of the law | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Accepted by Court |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 17, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Shrikanth S/O Shankrappa Hosalli vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2026

Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4418
CRL.P No. 100412 of 2026

                 HC-KAR

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD

                      DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                      BEFORE

               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

                      CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100412 OF 2026
                            (482([Cr.PC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/))/528(BNSS))

                 BETWEEN:

                 1.    SHRIKANTH S/O.. SHANKRAPPA HOSALLI,
                       AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                       R/O. HUILGOL, TQ AND DIST. GADAG-582102.

                 2.    SIDDAPPA S/O. SHANMUKAPPA HOSALLI,
                       AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                       R/O. HUILGOL,
                       TQ AND DIST. GADAG-582102.

                 3.    ASLAM S/O. SHIRAJUDDIN RAJANLAL,
                       AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
                       R/O. BETAGERI,
                       TQ AND DIST. GADAG-582102.

Digitally signed
by
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Location: High
4. PRASANT S/O. PRAKASH GUDIMANI,
Court of
Karnataka, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Dharwad Bench
R/O. GAVARAWAD, NOW AT NEAR KVSR COLLEGE,
TQ AND DIST. GADAG-582102.

                 5.    HANAMANTH S/O. SHIVAPPA KARJAGI,
                       AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
                       R/O. GAVARAWAD,
                       TQ AND DIST. GADAG 582102.

                 6.    YUVARAJ S/O. YALLAPPA KORAVAR.
                       AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
                       R/O. GANDHI NAGAR, BETAGERI,
                       TQ AND DIST. GADAG-582102.
                        -2-
                                    NC: 2026:KHC-D:4418
                               CRL.P No. 100412 of 2026

HC-KAR

1. ANIL S/O. HANAMANTAPPA MUTAGAR,
   AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
   R/O. GANDHI NAGAR, BETAGERI,
   TQ AND DIST. GADAG 582102.

2. AADI S/O. VENKATESH MUTAGAR,
   AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
   R/O. GANDHI NAGAR, BETAGERI,
   TQ AND DIST. GADAG-582102.

3. PRAKASH S/O. TIMMANNA NIDAGUNDI,
   AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
   R/O. PANCHAXARI NAGAR, BETAGERI,
   TQ AND DIST. GADAG-582102.
   ...PETITIONERS
   (BY SRI. HIRANKUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION, GADAG,
   REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
   DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011.

2. MILIND S/O. PRAKASH KALI,
   AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
   R/O. HUILGOL,
   TQ AND DIST. GADAG-582102.

3. PREMA W/O. PRAKASH KALI,
   AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
   R/O. HUILGOL,
   TQ AND DIST. GADAG-582102.

4. SUMITRAVVA W/O. CHANDAPPA KALI,
   AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
   R/O. HUILGOL,
   TQ AND DIST. GADAG-582102.
   -3-
   NC: 2026:KHC-D:4418
   CRL.P No. 100412 of 2026

HC-KAR

1. HARSAHVARDAN S/O. PRAKASH KALI,
   AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
   R/O. HUILGOL,
   TQ AND DIST. GADAG-582102.

2. RUDRESH S/O. SANNAMALKAPPA KALI,
   AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
   R/O. HUILGOL,
   TQ AND DIST. GADAG-582102.
   ...RESPONDENTS
   (BY SRI. ABHISHEKH MALI PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
   SRI. MOT GOURISHANKAR HARISCHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
   R2-R6)

   THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 528 OF BNSS,
   PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
   ACCUSED NO. 1, 2, 5 TO 11/ PETITIONERS AS IN GADAG RURAL
   POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO. 76/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE
   PUNISHABLE U/SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 427, 504, 506
   R/W. SECTION 149 OF IPC AND U/SEC 3(1)(r)(s)(2)(va) OF
   SC/ST(PA) ACT-1989 (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2015 PENDING ON
   THE FILE OF COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
   JUDGE, AT GADAG IN SPL.C (SC/ST) NO.0171/202, IN THE
   INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

   THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
   ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4418
CRL.P No. 100412 of 2026

HC-KAR

                               ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a joint

application under Section 359(6) and (8) 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.

1. The offence alleged in the present case are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 427, 504, 506 read with [Section

149](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/999134/) of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(2)(va) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(Amendment) Act, 20152.

1. 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.

Hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS, 2023'

Hereinafter referred to as the 'SC and ST Act'

                                               NC: 2026:KHC-D:4418

HC-KAR

1. 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

Pradesh3, and another](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12019689/) decision in the case of [Narinder Singh

and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another4](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160278245/), 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 were

2021 SCC Online SC 834

(2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4418

HC-KAR

described by this Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana5 which has been followed and further explained/elaborated
in so many cases thereafter, which are taken note of in
the discussion that follows hereinafter.

1. 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 Punjab6. 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.

(2003) 4 SCC 675

(2012) 10 SCC 303

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4418

HC-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.Joshi7, Nikhil Merchant8, Manoj Sharma9
and Shiji10 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 B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, ([2003) 4 SCC 675

Nikhil Merchant v. CBI](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/393489/), (2008) 9 SCC 677

Manoj Sharma v. State, ([2008) 16 SCC 1

Shiji v. Radhika](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1282121/), (2011) 10 SCC 705

                                                    NC: 2026:KHC-D:4418

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."

1. 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 Punjab11 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.

(2012) 10 SCC 303

                                               NC: 2026:KHC-D:4418

HC-KAR

1. 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](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/) or
        offences of moral turpitude under special statutes,
        like the [Prevention of Corruption Act](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1331755/) or the offences
        committed by public servants while working in that
        capacity, the settlement between the offender and
   

• 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4418

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."

1. 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
   

• 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4418

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](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1331755/), 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,

• 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4418

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

• 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4418

HC-KAR

      statute, like the [Prevention of Corruption Act](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1331755/) 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."

1. 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 case. Hence, the following:

ORDER

a) The petition and the joint application filed

under Section 359 (6) & (8) of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are allowed.

b) Consequently, the FIR in Crime No.76/2024

registered by the Gadag Rural Police Station for

• 14 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:4418

HC-KAR

        the offence punishable under Sections 143,

        147, 148, 323, 427, 504, 506 read with [Section

        149](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/999134/) of    IPC        and    under [Sections

        3(1)(r)(s)(2)(va)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78807341/) of the Scheduled Castes and

        Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

        1989 (Amendment) Act, 2015, and all further

        investigation and proceedings in connection

        with said case, which is pending on the file of

        Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag

        in SPL.C.No.171/2024, 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:PA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27