Karnataka High Court
Kiran S/O Neelappa Pawar vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7718
CRL.P No. 102032 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102032 OF 2025
(482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
KIRAN S/O. NEELAPPA PAWAR,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE,
R/O. SHIRAHATTI POLICE QUARTERS,
SHIRAHATTI-582120, DIST. GADAG.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRUTHVI K. S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH SHIRAHATTI POLICE STATION,
NOW REP. BY S.P.P, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD-08.
Digitally 2. VICTIM
signed by
RAKESH S ...RESPONDENTS
HARIHAR
Location:
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDD, HCGP FOR R1;
High Court
of
SRI. SADANAND M. K, ADV. FOR R2)
Karnataka,
Dharwad
Bench THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.
528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO. 39/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG IN CONNECTION WITH FIR
CRIME NO. 207/2024 DATED 24.12.2024 REGISTERED BY
SHIRAHATTI P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S.64(2)(a)(i),
64(2)(a)(ii), 64(2)(m), 69, 238, 318(2), 308(2), 318(4), 351(2) AND
115(2) OF BNS, 2023 WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7718
CRL.P No. 102032 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. Pruthvi K.S., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State and Sri. Sadanand M.K., learned counsel for respondent No.2 - de facto complainant.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in S.C. No.39/2025 on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(a)(i), 64(2)(a)(ii), 64(2)(m), 69, 238, 318(2), 308(2), 318(4), 351(2) and 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The sum and substance of the charge sheet is that the victim was aged about 22 years in the year 2022.
The petitioner came into contact with the victim, developed love with her and on a promise to marriage, he -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7718 CRL.P No. 102032 of 2025 HC-KAR took her to Kaluve Tanda of Hadagali Taluk and he committed forcible sexual intercourse on her on 13.10.2022 in the land of one Nemya Naik Karbari and thereafter, he again committed similar act against her on different dates and thereafter, the victim requested him to perform marriage. He made criminal intimidation to eliminate her. On the contrary, he also made criminal intimidation that he would upload her nude photographs in the public media. Hence, the first informant lodged the complaint which led to registration of FIR and initiation of investigation. The Investigating Officer investigated the matter and filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.
Soon after receipt of the charge sheet, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and issued process against the accused. Taking exception to the same, this petitioner filed petition to quash the entire proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused has solemnized his marriage with the victim (respondent No.2 - de facto complainant) on 05.04.2025 -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7718 CRL.P No. 102032 of 2025 HC-KAR before the Sub-Registrar, Shirahatti, and the marriage has since been registered. It is further submitted that the families of both the accused and the victim are now maintaining cordial relations, and the earlier differences have been amicably resolved. The accused and the victim are presently residing together under one roof. In light of this development, a compromise petition has been filed, wherein the parties have expressed that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Since the alleged offences are non-
compoundable in nature, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings and permission to record the compromise.
5. Today, both the accused and respondent No.2 -
the de facto complainant are present before the Court.
They have affirmed that they are legally married, having registered their marriage before the Sub-Registrar, and -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7718 CRL.P No. 102032 of 2025 HC-KAR that the dispute between them has been resolved amicably.
6. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State submits that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the Court may allow the compromise and quash the proceedings.
7. Sri. Sadanand M.K., learned counsel for respondent No.2 - de facto complainant submits that since the matter is amicably settled between the parties and the accused has solemnized his marriage with the victim, in view of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the entire proceedings may be quashed.
8. Perused the materials available on record. The de facto complainant has married accused and now she is residing with the accused happily. Since, the accused and the de facto complainant have compromised the dispute with each other, it will be a futile exercise, if the accused is subjected to trial, since, the probability of his conviction -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7718 CRL.P No. 102032 of 2025 HC-KAR is remote and bleak. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr1 has held at para Nos.31 to 35 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 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:1
(2014) 6 SCC 466 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7718 CRL.P No. 102032 of 2025 HC-KAR
(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 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 -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7718 CRL.P No. 102032 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7718 CRL.P No. 102032 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.
33. In the present case, FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 was registered under Section 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
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7718 CRL.P No. 102032 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7718 CRL.P No. 102032 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.'' (emphasis supplied)
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dasari Srikanth vs. State of Telangana2 has held at para Nos.8, 9 and 10 as under:
"8. Since, the appellant and the complainant have married each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger.
9. As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court and modified by the High Court.
10. As a result, the impugned judgment dated 27th June, 2023 passed by the High Court and judgment dated 9th April, 2021 passed by the trial Court are hereby quashed and set aside."2
2024 Live Law (SC) 391
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7718 CRL.P No. 102032 of 2025 HC-KAR
11. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.6214/2022 considering the ratios laid down in J.Ramesh Kamath and others vs. Mohana Kurupt and others3, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another4, Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another5, Srinivasan Iyender vs. Bimla Devi Agarwal6, permitted the parties to compromise in similar terms and in Criminal Petition No.101756/2024, considering the above said ratio laid down, has quashed the proceedings against the accused.
12. At this juncture, since there are number of judgments of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which have quashed the proceedings on account of marriage of the victim with the accused. Hence, I deem it proper to 3 (2016) 12 SCC 179 4 (2012) 10 SCC 303 5 (2014) 6 SCC 466 6 (2019) 4 SCC 456
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7718 CRL.P No. 102032 of 2025 HC-KAR follow those judgments and quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
13. Therefore, in the light of marriage having taken place between the victim and accused, more particularly, the marriage being registered and a certificate being issued in accordance with law depicting the couple to be legally wedded husband and wife, it shows that the couple are leading a happy marital life. If the victim is going to turn hostile in the trial at a later point in time and the petitioner gets acquitted of all the offences, sword of crime would turn to sword of the accused. It is not the end result that is painful or otherwise, but the process in the criminal justice system that generates such pain. In the teeth of these facts, glaring enough they are, if the Court would shut its doors to the couple who are married, the entire proceeding would result in miscarriage of justice. It is therefore, I deem it appropriate, to accept the settlement between the parties and terminate the proceedings qua the petitioner.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7718 CRL.P No. 102032 of 2025 HC-KAR
14. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is disposed of.
The impugned proceedings in S.C. No.39/2025 pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag insofar as the petitioner is concerned, stands quashed.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RSH /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54