Shri Hari Krishna S/O Linganna Manila v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jan 2025CRL.P/100328/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench; CRL.P No. 100328 of 2025; Justice Hemant Chandangoudar; quashing of criminal proceedings; Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS; Sections 504, 506, 354(A)(i)(C)(D)(i) IPC; Section 67 Information Technology Act 2000; pornographic photograph shared on WhatsApp; compounding application for cognizable and non-compoundable offences; amicable settlement between accused and complainant; probability of conviction remote and bleak; abuse of process of law; JMFC II Court Hubballi; Kasabapeth P.S. Crime No.164/2017; C.C. No.1414/2018.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in C.C. No.1414/2018 (arising out of Kasabapeth Police Station Crime No.164/2017) pending on the file of the JMFC II Court, Hubballi. ¶¶27

Shri Hari Krishna S/O Linganna Manila Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in C.C. No.1414/2018 (arising out of Kasabapeth Police Station Crime No.164/2017) pending on the file of the JMFC II Court, Hubballi.

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C. No.1414/2018 (Kasabapeth P.S. Crime No.164/2017) before the JMFC II Court, Hubballi, should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, notwithstanding that the offences alleged are cognizable and non-compoundable.

¶¶23

Court's answer

The parties have amicably resolved the dispute; Respondent No. 2 has voluntarily agreed to withdraw all allegations without coercion or undue influence and has no objection to the quashing of the impugned proceedings.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

Although the offences alleged are cognizable and non-compoundable, given the amicable settlement it would serve no purpose to subject the petitioner to trial, and the probability of conviction is remote and bleak.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner after the settlement would amount to an abuse of the process of law; accordingly the proceedings in C.C. No.1414/2018 are quashed.ratio¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (Hemant Chandangoudar, J.), 25-01-2025 — Criminal Petition No. 100328 of 2025 under S.482 Cr.P.C. (S.528 BNSS) by the accused allowed; criminal proceedings in C.C. No.1414/2018 (Kasabapeth P.S. Crime No.164/2017) pending before JMFC II Court, Hubballi, for offences under Sections 504, 506 and 354(A)(i)(C)(D)(i) IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 — founded on the allegation that the petitioner uploaded a pornographic photograph and shared it with Respondent No. 2 via WhatsApp — quashed. Although the offences were cognizable and non-compoundable, the parties having amicably settled the dispute, Respondent No. 2 having voluntarily withdrawn all allegations without coercion or undue influence and raised no objection to quashing, the Court held that trial would serve no purpose, the probability of conviction was remote and bleak, and continuance of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1500 CRL.P No. 100328 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100328 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHRI. HARI KRISHNA S/O. LINGANNA MANILA AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O. MADIGA DHARMAVARAM SIDDGUTTA AREA NEAR REBAL CAFE TEA STALL, DIST. ANANTHPURA, ANDHRA PRADESH-515671.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G.DALWAI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD, THROUGH KASABAPETH POLICE STATION, HUBLI SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, HUBBALLI-580024.

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR B K Location: HIGH MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.29 15:27:20 +0530

¶12

SHRI. NAGARAJ S/O. MAREPPA TAGARGUNTI AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, R/O. INDIRANAGAR, 1^ST CROSS, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580024.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. RAKESH M.BILKI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED IN CC NO.1414/2018 CRIME NO.0164/2017 KASABAPETH P.S. HUBBALLI, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC II COURT HUBBALLI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 504, 506, (A) (2) (C) (D) (1) OF IPC AND SECTION 67 OF I.T. ACT.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1500 CRL.P No. 100328 of 2025

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, and 354(A)(i)(C)(D)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶21

The prosecution case is that the petitioner uploaded a pornographic photograph and shared the same with Respondent No. 2 via WhatsApp.

¶22

The parties are present before the Court and have filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for compounding of the offence. They state that they have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves, and Respondent No. 2 has voluntarily agreed to withdraw all allegations without any coercion or undue influence and has no objection to the quashing of the impugned proceedings.

¶23

Although the offences alleged are cognizable and noncompoundable, considering that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, it would serve no purpose to subject the petitioner to trial. The probability of conviction is remote and bleak, given the settlement reached between the parties. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1500 CRL.P No. 100328 of 2025

¶25

ORDER

¶26

i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶27

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.1414/2018 (arising out of Kasabapeth Police Station Crime No.164/2017) pending on the file of JMFC II Court Hubballi, are hereby quashed.

¶28

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶29

AC Ct:vh List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1

Shri Hari Krishna S/O Linganna Manila v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Hari Krishna S/O Linganna Manila v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Pradeep R Vs State by Karnataka

Krishnegowda. O. R. Vs State of Karnataka

Baddi Raju @ Rajesh.D.S Vs State by Chikkamagaluru Town Police Station

Peer Bi Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Uday S/O Ramakrishna Shetty Vs the Stae of Karnataka

Anurag S/O. Vijay Angolkar, Vs the State of Karnataka