Karnataka High Court
Mr. Sharath M vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5290
WP No. 35318 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 35318 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. SHARATH M.,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
S/O MANJUNATH,
R/AT NO.51/44, 1ST MAIN,
BEHIND TTMC BUS STAND,
DEVAKIGARDEN,
MARUTHI MANDIR, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
2. MR. DARSHAN R. C.,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
by SANJEEVINI S/O CHIKKARAMAIAH,
J KARISHETTY
Location: High R/AT NO.9, RANGANATHA NILAYA,
Court of
Karnataka BEHIND SLV MILITARY HOTEL,
KADABAGERE, BENGALURU - 560 090.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DILIP KUMAR GOWDA R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5290
WP No. 35318 of 2025
HC-KAR
GOVINDARAJANAGAR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MR. NISHCHAY,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
S/O SURESH M.KANEKAL,
R/AT NEAR ROBIN THEATRE,
4TH CROSS, KENGERI,
BENGALURU - 560 060.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 PF
BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO. 1 AND 2 IN CRIME NO. 422/2025
OF GOVINDARAJA NAGAR POLICE STATION FOR THE
OFFENSES UNDER SECTIONS 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352,
126(2), 351(2), 351(3) R/W 3(5) OF BNS 2023, VIDE
ANNEXURES-B AND B1.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:5290
WP No. 35318 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in Crime No.422/2025 of Govindaraja Nagar Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 109, 126(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of BNS 2023.
2. Heard Sri.Dilip Kumar Gowda R, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Suyog Herele E, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. The petitioners who are college students, are accused Nos.1 and 2, who get embroiled in a crime, which arose out of the alleged assault to the complainant by the accused. The allegation in the complaint is that the complainant develops a relationship with sister of petitioner No.1 which leads to a quarrel between the petitioners and the complainant.
On 29.10.2025, it is alleged that the petitioners physically assaulted the complainant. Then crime No.422/2025 comes to -4- NC: 2026:KHC:5290 WP No. 35318 of 2025 HC-KAR be registered against petitioners for various offences including section 109 of the BNS. The petitioners were arrested and were subsequently released on regular bail by the concerned Court.
Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. During the pendency of the petition before this Court, the parties to the lis file an application along with affidavits for quashing of the said crime on the score that they have amicably resolved the dispute amongst themselves and have drawn up certain terms of settlement along with the affidavits.
5. The learned HCGP would vehemently oppose the closure of the petition on the sole ground that the offence alleged is the one punishable under 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.
-5-NC: 2026:KHC:5290 WP No. 35318 of 2025 HC-KAR
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 is met or whether it has been included for the sake of it. The Apex Court observes 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 1 (2025) 4 SCC 78 2 (2019) 5 SCC 688 -6- NC: 2026:KHC:5290 WP No. 35318 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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 -7- NC: 2026:KHC:5290 WP No. 35318 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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) -8- NC: 2026:KHC:5290 WP No. 35318 of 2025 HC-KAR
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 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.
-9-NC: 2026:KHC:5290 WP No. 35318 of 2025 HC-KAR
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. 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:
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5290 WP No. 35318 of 2025 HC-KAR "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 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 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5290 WP No. 35318 of 2025 HC-KAR 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, which then leads to a physical altercation.
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 Nos.1 and 2.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is disposed.
(ii) Proceedings in Crime No.422/2025 registered by Govindaraja Nagar Police Station, for the offences
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5290 WP No. 35318 of 2025 HC-KAR punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 109, 126(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of BNS 2023, vide Annexures-B and B1, qua the petitioners stand quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80 CT:SS