The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR under the SC/ST (POA) Act after parties filed a joint memo for settlement, relying on a Supreme Court ruling permitting compounding of such offences.
The Criminal Petition was disposed of and the FIR in Crime No. 39/2023 was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3499 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 530
Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K
MALEBENNUR TOWN HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 530
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
CRL.P No. 3499 of 2023
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-1; SMT.SHRUTHI S.P., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.39/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 353, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT 1989 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE ON THE COMPLIANT TO RESPONDENT NO.2 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court seeking quashment of registration of crime in Crime No.39/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 353, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
“4. It is submitted that, earlier to the dispute, the complainant and the accused persons were living in one locality without there being any disrespect to each other. Entire area was very much in protected from any disturbance due to caste or community issues. In view of fact the petitioners and respondent No-2 both are agreed to withdraw their disputes for compromise and to withdraw the complaint in his free will to withdraw the entire criminal case pending in Crime No. 39/2023 pending on the file of the II Addl. District & Session Judge at Davanagere unconditionally and complainant has expressed his consent to this joint memo with his free will and agreed to make signature to this joint memo.
5. The petitioners and respondent no.2 herein have accepted and affixed their signature in this compromise. The respondent no.2 has affixed his signature by extending his consent for quashment/
CRL.P No. 3499 of 2023
withdrawal of the allegations out of his free will. Further, the petitioners also agreed and accepted this content of the application and affixed their signatures.
6. That, the petitioners and respondent no.2 have agreed to the averments made in this application and verified that, the contents of this application are narrated upon their instructions. Thereafter, respective counsels for petitioners and respondent no.2 have read over and explained the contents consequence of filing of this application for compounding and upon verifying and also accepting the same out of their free will consent has been extended by affixing their respective signatures by the parties to this application.”
wherein the Apex Court directs that even offences under the said act can be compromised, I deem it appropriate to accept the compromise so filed before this Court and terminate the proceedings qua the petitioners.
CRL.P No. 3499 of 2023
ORDER
District, Davanagere, stands quashed.
Sd/JUDGE
LB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, which are generally non-compoundable, can be compromised in light of a Supreme Court judgment allowing such compounding?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶37
Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2021 SC 5228 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sri Lal Sab @ Maroof Khan S/o. Buden Khan
Sri Jabi @ Ismail Jabi Ulla S/o. Rahim Sab
Sri. Usman @ Mohammad Usman Khan S/o. Ameer Khan
The State of Karnataka
Sri Manjunatha A.K. S/o. Narasimhappa
M. Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
