Sri Shubham S/O Prakash Sarwade Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. SHUBHAM S/O PRAKASH SARWADE, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. RAIBAG, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, CORRECT ADDRESS: R/O. MAIN ROAD KABBUR, VTC: KABBUR, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 222.

¶10

SRI. NIKHIL S/O VINOD SANKAPAL, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. RAIBAG, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 317.

¶11

Digitally
signed by
RAKESH S
RAKESH HARIHAR
SHARIHAR Location:HIGHCOURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH

¶12

SRI. BASAVARAJ BAIRAPPA DAMOJI, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. ENGINEER, R/O. RAIBAG, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, CORRECT ADDRESS: R/O. DAMOJI GALLI, RAIBAG-591 317, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶13

SRI. PRASAD S/O PRAKASH KULAKARNI, AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE IN PVT. FIRM, R/O. RAIBAG, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, CORRECT ADDRESS: R/O. C/O PRAKASH KULAKRNI, #1066, HARIPRIYA NIVAS, SIDDESHWAR GALLI, RAIBAG, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. RAIBAG.

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11134 CRL.P No. 102673 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

SRI. PRASHANT S/O KABIR VAIDAY, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. RAIBAG, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, CORRECT ADDRESS: R/O. ANKALI ROAD, RAIBAG-591 317, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶17

… PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY TERADAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580 001.

¶21

SRI. ARUN NARASIMH SHETTY, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. JANNAR VILLAGE, TQ. BAINDUR, DIST. UDAPI, NOW AT: R/O. TERDAL PRABHULINGESHWAR NAGAR-587 101, BAGALKOT, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT. … RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. GURIKIRAN A.H., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLIANT DATED 08/06/2025 IN CRIME NO.57/2025 OF TERADAL POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 115(2), 118(1), 190, 189(2), 118(2), 191(2), 191(3) OF BNS, PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED SENIOR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT BANAHATTI AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11134 CRL.P No. 102673 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶30

Accused Nos.1 to 5 are before this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings against them in Crime No.57 of 2025 registered by Teradal Police Station, Bagalkote District for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 190, 189(2), 118(2), 191(2), 191(3) of BNS, 2023, which is pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti, Bagalkote District.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2 jointly submit that dispute between the parties has been amicably settled at the intervention of well wishers of both the parties. The incident in question had taken place inside a bar and restaurant with regard to payment of bill by the accused persons. Injured victims have suffered simple injuries in the incident in question and the entire medical expenses of the injured

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11134 CRL.P No. 102673 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

were met by the accused persons. Parties are known to each other and they do not intend to continue the dispute and therefore, they are before this Court.

¶36

Learned HCGP, however has brought to the notice of this Court that FIR has been registered in the present case for non-compoundable offences.

¶37

Perusal of the averments found in the first information would go to show that on 07.06.2025 at about 11:00 p.m., accused persons who had consumed liquor and

¶38

food in Aras Bar and Restaurant owned by the first informant had thereafter quarrelled with the owner and staff of the bar and restaurant with regard to payment of the bill for the food and liquor consumed by them. In the said incident, accused persons had assaulted Muttappa and Deepak, who are employees of the bar and restaurant and also had damaged the property of the first informant in the bar and restaurant. It is under these circumstances, FIR came to be registered against them in Crime No.57 of 2025 for the aforesaid offences by the Teradal Police Station, on

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11134 CRL.P No. 102673 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

the basis of first information received from respondent

¶42

No.2, who is the owner of the bar and restaurant.

¶43

The parties to the petition as well as the two

¶44

victims are before this Court. The parties, who are present in person before the Court, are identified by their respective Advocates. The application filed under Section 528 read with Section 359 of BNSS, 2023 is supported by the affidavit of the respondent No.2 – de facto complainant. The application is not only signed by the petitioners and respondent No.2, but the same is also signed by the injured victims, who are present in person before the Court. It is submitted that dispute between the parties has been settled amicably at the intervention of well wishers of both the parties and the petitioners have not only made good the loss suffered by first informant, but they also have paid the medical expenses and the injured victims have been compensated. It is submitted that the settlement between the parties is voluntary without there being any undue influence and coercion. The parties intend to give a quietus

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11134 CRL.P No. 102673 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

to the dispute between themselves. It is submitted that though Section 118(2) of BNSS, 2023 is invoked in the FIR, the injured victims have suffered only simple injuries in the incident, which is not disputed by the injured persons who are present before the Court.

¶48

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh¹ has observed that notwithstanding the limitations provided under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., this Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal cases registered for non-compoundable offences depending upon the nature and gravity of the allegations and also the nature of settlement between the parties.

¶49

In the present case, parties are known to each other and incident in question had taken place inside the bar and restaurant in which the petitioners had consumed alcohol and food. In paragraph 3 and 4 of the affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is stated as follows:

¶50

1 AIR 2022 (14) SCC 531

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11134 CRL.P No. 102673 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

“3. I submit that at the intervention of elders and well wishers the dispute has been resolved. We have amicably settled the dispute between ourselves and it is agreed by petitioners to may good loss caused to complainant and injured. Even myself and both injured have agreed for the settlement and are ready for getting the matter compromised as no grievous injuries are sustained by the injured victims.

¶55

4. I have no objection to quash the above proceedings as against the petitioner.”

¶56

The first informant and the victims, who are

¶57

present before the Court have stated that the petitioners have have made good the loss caused to respondent No.2 and also have met the medical expenses of the victims and have compensated them. Parties who are known to each other, intend to give a quietus to the inter se dispute between them.

¶58

Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case wherein this Court needs to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to do

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11134 CRL.P No. 102673 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

complete justice to all the parties. Accordingly, the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶64

The entire proceedings in Crime No.57 of 2025 registered by Teradal Police Station, Bagalkote District for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 190, 189(2), 118(2), 191(2), 191(3) of BNS, 2023, which is pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti, Bagalkote District is hereby quashed.

¶65

Sd/(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶66

RSH / CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 77

Sri Shubham S/O Prakash Sarwade v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shubham S/O Prakash Sarwade v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh S/O. Ramappa Nandi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sanjeev S Chitnis Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Ashoka Banta S/O Bommayya Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Aditya S/O Nagesh Banavalikar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mansur S/O Husen Sab Vs the State of Karnataka

E a Charanraj S/O. E a Allappa Vs the State of Karnataka