Karnataka High Court
Vibhor Agarwal vs State By on 19 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2849
WP No. 16717 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 16717 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. VIBHOR AGARWAL
S/O MR.ASHISH GARG,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT MSR BOY'S HOME,
NO.6, 7TH MAIN ROAD,
MS RAMAIAH NAGAR, MATHIKERE,
BENGALURU - 560 054.
2. YASH VARDHAN SINGH
S/O SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.
R/AT NO.31, 3RD FLOOR,
Digitally 8TH MAIN, SBM COLONY,
signed by BRINDAVAN NAGAR,
NAGAVENI
BENGALURU - 560 054.
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka 3. HARSH VARDHAN SINGH,
S/O SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT NO.31, 3RD FLOOR,
8TH MAIN, SBM COLONY,
BRINDAVAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 054.
4. RAJARYAN,
S/O MR.RAJESH KUMAR,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2849
WP No. 16717 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
SILVER OAKS APARTMENT,
JALADARSHINI LAYOUT,
SANJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
5. RAJVARDHAN SINGH,
S/O MR. VIKRAM SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.201,
SUYOG SERENITY, 80/1,
AK COLONY, GOKULA 1ST STAGE,
MATHIKERE EXTENSION, MATHIKERE,
BENGALURU - 560 054.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY SADHASHIVANAGAR POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KUMAR. SATHYAM VIMAL
S/O. BIJAY KUMAR BIMAL
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT. FLAT.NO.204, LAKSMI SADAN 6 AND 7
80 FEET ROAD, NEAR BALANJANEYA TEMPLE
BENGALURU - 560 006
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI. SHARATH S. GOGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:2849
WP No. 16717 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 528 OF BNSS, 2023
PRAYING TO- QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME
NO. 77/2025 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
109, 118 (1) 189 (2), 190, 191 (1) 191 (2), 333, 351 (2) of
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS) 2023, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF 1ST ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT
BENGALURU, REGISTERED BY THE R1 SADHASHIVANGAGAR
POLICE STATION IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER ARE CONCERNED
VIDE ANNEXURE -A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 and respondent No.2 is the complainant. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in crime No.77/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 189 (2), 190, 191(1), 191(2), 333, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS' for short).
2. Heard Sri. Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and -4- NC: 2026:KHC:2849 WP No. 16717 of 2025 HC-KAR Sri. Sharath S. Gogi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. The allegation in the complaint is that the accused persons and the complainant study in the same institution and are also inmates in a student's hostel. There was an altercation between the two parties involving physical injuries to the complainant, which leads to registration of the said crime for several offences including the one punishable under Section 109 of the BNS.
4. During the pendency of this petition, both the parties file a joint application under Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS' for short) for compounding of the offences mentioned in the FIR. They submit that, they have amicably resolved their disputes and pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings.
5. The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose the closure of the petition on the sole ground that the offence alleged is the one punishable under -5- NC: 2026:KHC:2849 WP No. 16717 of 2025 HC-KAR Section 109 of the BNS and in an offence under Section 109 of the BNS, the case should not be closed by way of settlement and the accused should come out clean in the trial.
6. Therefore, the issue that stands for consideration is whether this Court by exercising it's inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS can compound and quash an offence punishable under Section 109 of the BNS which is heinous and non-compoundable in nature.
7. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of NAUSHEY ALI v. STATE OF U.P.1 while reiterating the law laid down by it in the case of STATE OF M.P. v. LAXMI NARAYAN2 holds that, the Court answering the settlement even for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) should not be bogged down by the offence, but has to look into the ingredients of the offence and examine whether it 1 (2025) 4 SCC 78 2 (2019) 5 SCC 688 -6- NC: 2026:KHC:2849 WP No. 16717 of 2025 HC-KAR is met or whether it has been included for the sake of it. The judgment reads as follows:
"20. Will the mere mention of Section 307IPC in the criminal proceedings force the court to adopt a hands-off approach, when parties come forward with a settlement? In that event, what should be the duty of the court and what are the tests to be applied to decide in which cases settlements would be accepted and in which cases it would not be?
21. In State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan [State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706] , after discussing the ratio in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] and other judgments, this Court held : (Laxmi Narayan case [State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 :
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706] , SCC pp. 704-705, para 15) "15. 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:
15.1. 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;
15.2. 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 private in nature and have a serious impact on society;
15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences -7- NC: 2026:KHC:2849 WP No. 16717 of 2025 HC-KAR 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;
15.4. Offences under Section 307IPC 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 307IPC 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 307IPC 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 307IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307IPC. 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/delicate 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 paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court inNarinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5 [Ed. : Para 15.5 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./22/2019 dated 3- 4-2019.] . 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 -8- NC: 2026:KHC:2849 WP No. 16717 of 2025 HC-KAR not have a serious impact 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 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."
(emphasis supplied)
22. Before we apply this judgment to the facts, it will be worthwhile to recall the observations of Sikri, J. in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] : (SCC p. 481, para 26) "26. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307IPC as well."
(emphasis supplied)
23. Coming back to Laxmi Narayan [State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706] , this Court has held that mere mention of Section 307IPC in the FIR or the charge-sheet should not be the basis for adopting a hands-off approach. It has further held that it would be open for the court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307IPC is there for the sake of it or whether there is evidence to back it. It has been held that the courts may go by the nature of injuries sustained; as to whether the injuries are inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body and the nature of weapon used. It has also been clarified that such an exercise would be permissible after investigation and filing of charge- sheet/framing of charges or during the trial. (See -9- NC: 2026:KHC:2849 WP No. 16717 of 2025 HC-KAR para 15.4 of Laxmi Narayan [State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706] .)
24. Coming to the facts of the case, admittedly, there is a settlement between the parties. The case filed by the appellants' party which was prior in point of time and that too on the same day of occurrence, has been settled.
25. It should be recalled that, at the outset, after investigation, the police actually closed the case in its final report of 7-9-1991. It was the trial court, which by its order of 5-9-1992, refused to accept the same and summoned the appellants. The incident is of 11-8-1991 i.e. about 33½ years back. No doubt, there is a reference to the firing in the FIR but admittedly there was no injury. The allegation is that firing was done by Abdul Waris. He is since deceased. The facts, assuming to be true, also do not make out a case of common object for the appellants under Section 149IPC insofar as the offence of Section 307 is concerned.
26. The role attributed to the seven members, including the five appellants is not specific. General allegation was that they abused in filthy language and assaulted Mahmood with lathi and iron bars. The specific individual role was only attributed to Adbul Waris, who is since deceased.
27. In any event, the police who investigated disbelieved the entire story. No recoveries have been made of any pellets. What engaged the attention of the High Court was only the fracture of the head of the distal phalanx of left finger of Respondent 2.
28. We have seen the injuries sustained by Mahmood (R-2) from the medical evidence collected. From the injury report, it is clear that while the first four injuries were contusions and abrasions, Injuries 5, 6 and 7 pertained to incised lacerated wound and swelling on the middle finger of the left hand. We have also seen the x- ray report which shows that in the left hand there was a fracture of the head of distal phalanx of left ring finger.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2849 WP No. 16717 of 2025 HC-KAR Assuming that this was the result of injury with lathis or iron bar, applying the test in Laxmi Narayan [State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706] , considering the injury and the nature of the weapon used, certainly no offence under Section 307IPC is made out.
29. Section 307IPC reads as under:
"307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.--When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death."
30. Keeping in mind the surrounding circumstances, the nature of the weapon and the nature of the injury, on facts, we are inclined to conclude that the overt act attributed to the appellants does not bring the case within the four corners of Section 307IPC, either on a stand-alone basis or as held above with the aid of Section 149IPC.
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment also notices the observations made by it in the case of NARINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB3 which states that, though an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, involving an attempt to 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2849 WP No. 16717 of 2025 HC-KAR take the life of another person, is serious in nature, the Court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that, many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to a physical commotion and sustaining of injuries by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307 of the IPC as well.
8. Section 109 of the BNS corresponds to Section 307 of the IPC. Though the complaint in the case at hand is filed for several heinous offences including one punishable under Section 109 of the BNS, it ultimately stems from a quarrel between the parties, who are all college students, which then leads to a physical altercation. Further, in the complaint there are no specific allegations attributed to each petitioner/accused. Therefore, this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in NAUSHEY ALI supra. In that light, while admonishing the students not to indulge in such altercations in the future, I deem it appropriate to accept the application seeking compounding and close the proceedings against the petitioners/accused.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2849 WP No. 16717 of 2025 HC-KAR
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is disposed.
(ii) Registration of a crime in crime No.77/2025 pending on the file of 1st Additional Judicial Magistrate at Bengaluru qua the petitioners stands quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 83