Karnataka High Court
Nagaraj S/O Nagareddy Ennaposalu vs Peter Pinto S/O Raymond Pinto on 17 March, 2026
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4287
CRL.RP No. 100177 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100177 OF 2025
(397 OF Cr.PC/438 BNSS)
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJ S/O. NAGAREDDY ENNAPOSALU,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC,
R/AT: #368/66C, 4TH MAIN CROSS, GADAG ROAD, RAMNAGAR,
HUBBALLI, PINCODE-580020.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SACHIN C. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
PETER PINTO S/O. RAYMOND PINTO,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. H.NO.159, GAVISIDDESHWAR COLONY, GOPANAKOPPA,
HUBBALLI, PINCODE-580020.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ROHIT L. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.438 R/W.442
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE
Location: High
Court of
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench 24/03/2025 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5027/2023 BY THE 5TH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING
AT HUBBALLI, THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
REVISION PETITIONER AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 01/04/2023 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE JMFC-2 COURT, HUBBALLI, IN CC.NO.2049/2017,
CONVICTING THE REVISION PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS ACT AND SENTENCING HIM TO PAY A FINE OF
RS.6,25,000/-, WITH A DEFAULT SENTENCE OF 3 MONTHS OF SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT. CONSEQUENTLY, BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 138 OF NI ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4287
CRL.RP No. 100177 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This criminal revision petition is filed praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of learned Magistrate and by the Sessions Court.
2. The prayer made in the petition reads as follows:
"PRAYER A. WHEREFORE, the revision petitioner/Accused most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this petition and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24/03/2025 passed in criminal appeal no.5027/2023 by the 5th Additional District And Sessions Judge, Dharwad, Sitting At Hubballi, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the revision petitioner and confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01/04/2023 passed by the Hon'ble JMFC-2 court, Hubballi, in CC. No.2049/2017, convicting the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.6,25,000/-, with a default sentence of 3 months of simple imprisonment. Consequently, be pleased to acquit the revision petitioner/Accused offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act in the interest of justice.-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4287 CRL.RP No. 100177 of 2025 HC-KAR B. Grant such other relief as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
3. The revision petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant are present before the Court.
4. The offence alleged in the present case is under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18811.
5. Both the complainant and the accused are present and have filed a joint memo duly signed by them.
The learned counsels for both the complainant and the accused have also affixed their respective signatures on the said memo.
6. The offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is predominantly private in nature. If the offence is compounded, it does not seriously affect the society.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal and Another vs. The State of Madhya 1 Hereinafter referred to as the 'N.I. Act' -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4287 CRL.RP No. 100177 of 2025 HC-KAR Pradesh2, in paragraph Nos.10, 11, 12 and 13 has held as under:
"10. The compendium of these broad fundamentals structured in more than one judicial precedent, has been recapitulated by another 3-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.3 elaborating:
"(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;
(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;2
2021 SCC Online SC 834 3 (2019) 5 SCC 688 -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4287 CRL.RP No. 100177 of 2025 HC-KAR (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:
(4) xxx- xxx xxx (5) 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 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 Applied)
11. True it is that offences which are 'non- compoundable' cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4287 CRL.RP No. 100177 of 2025 HC-KAR 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of 'compoundable' offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.
12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable. The High Court an indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4287 CRL.RP No. 100177 of 2025 HC-KAR even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.
13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extra- ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4287 CRL.RP No. 100177 of 2025 HC-KAR offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.4 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra)."
8. 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 principle of law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case. Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) The petition is allowed.
b) The order dated 24.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.5027/2023 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, 4 (2014) 6 SCC 466 -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4287 CRL.RP No. 100177 of 2025 HC-KAR Dharwad, thereby confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2023 passed in C.C.No.2049/2017 on the file of JMFC-II, Hubballi, are hereby quashed.
c) The accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA para Nos.1 and 2 PMP para Nos.3 to end CT-AN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36