Shri Nagaraj S/O. Siddalingayya Hiremath, Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9155 CRL.P No. 102749 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 103380 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102749 OF 2025 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103380 OF 2023

¶9

IN CRL.P.NO.102749 OF 2025

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SHRI NAGARAJ S/O. *** GURUSIDDAYYA** HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶12

SHRI SHIVALINGAYYA @ SHIVASANGAYYA S/O. MRUTYUNJAYA HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶13

Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶14

LALITAVVA W/O. MRUTYUNJAYA HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶15

SIDDALINGAYYA S/O. MRUTYUNJAYA HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶16

SHARANAMMA W/O. NAGARAJA HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶17

EARAMMA @ VIRAMMA W/O. GURUPADAYYA HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶18

DODDAPPA S/O. CHENNAPPA AVARANI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶19

Corrected Vide Chambers Order dated 26.07.2025 Sd/-

¶20

(VNTJ

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9155 CRL.P No. 102749 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 103380 of 2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

SHARANAPPA S/O. MISHIDDAPPA JUGARI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶25

MAHANTAPPA S/O. MISHIDDAPPA JUGARI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶26

CHANDAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA JUGARI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶27

BASAVARAJ S/O. SANGAPPA JUGARI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶28

MAHANTAPPA @ MAHANTESH S/O. SANGAPPA BAJJALA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶29

GURAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA VAJJAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶30

MAHALINGAPPA S/O. SHANKRAPPA MUGALI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE., R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶31

SHIVU @ SHIVARAJ S/O. SANGAPPA JUGERI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶32

BASAVARAJ S/O. SIDDAPPA ADAPURA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: WATERMAN, R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶33

BASANAGOUDA S/O. MAHANTAGOUDA HAGASIMUNDIN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶34

SHARANAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA @ SIDDANAGOUDA AGASIMUNDIN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.,

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9155 CRL.P No. 102749 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 103380 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶38

ANANDA S/O. BASAVANTHAPPA POLICE PATIL, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶39

SHARANAPPA S/O. SIDDANAGOUDA POLICE PATIL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶40

MAHANTESH S/O. NINGAPPA VAJJAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶41

SHANKRAPPA S/O. KUDLEPPA DEESHETTI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶42

KUDLEPPA S/O. SHANKRAPPA DESHATTI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶43

…PETITIONERS

¶44

(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶45

AND:

¶46

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH HANUMASAGAR POLICE STATION, BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶47

SHRI KALAKAAPPA S/O. MALLESHAPPA SHETTAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: LAW PRACTITIONER, R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. BAGALKOT, DIST. BAGALKOT-587125.

¶48

…RESPONDENTS

¶49

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. VISHWANATH BADIGER, ADV. FOR R2)

¶50

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 24.01.2022 FILED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.01/2017 FOR THE OFFENCES

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9155 CRL.P No. 102749 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 103380 of 2023

¶52

4 -

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 109, 504, 506(2), 307, 353, 326 R/W. 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE KOPPAL, OUT OF CRIME NO.01/2016 HANUMASAGAR P.S. TQ. KUSTIGI, DIST. KOPPAL IN SO FAR PETITIONERS/A2, 4 TO 11, 13 TO 26 ARE CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶55

IN CRL. P. NO. 103380 OF 2023

¶56

BETWEEN:

¶57

SHRI JAGADISH S/O. GURUPADAYYA HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AYUSH MEDICAL OFFICER, R/O. PURTHAGERI, TAL: KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

¶58

…PETITIONER

¶59

(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI ,ADVOCATE)

¶60

AND:

¶61

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THORUGH HANUMASAGAR POLICE STATION, BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.

¶62

SHRI KALAKAAPPA S/O. MALLESHAPPA SHETTAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: LAW PRACTITIONER, R/O. PURTHAGERI, TQ. BAGALAKOT, DIST. BAGALKOT-587125.

¶63

…RESPONDENTS

¶64

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI VISHWANATH BADIGER, ADV. FOR R2)

¶65

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ALLOWED THE PETITION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2023 IN S.C. NO. 01/2017 PASSED BY PRL. AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT KOPPAL FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 109, 504, 506(2), 307, 353, 149 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶66

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶67

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9155 CRL.P No. 102749 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 103380 of 2023

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

ORAL ORDER

¶70

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶71

Heard Sri Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Abhishek Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and Sri Vishwanath Badiger, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in both the petitions.

¶72

Criminal Petition No.102749/2025 is filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.2, 4 to 11 and 13 to 26 and Criminal Petition No.103380/2023 is filed by the petitioners – accused No.3 under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’) seeking to quash the charge sheet and the impugned order dated 23.02.2023 passed in S.C. No.1/2017 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal (arising out of Crime No.1/2016 of Hanumasagar Police Station, Taluk Kushtagi, District Koppal), insofar as they relate to the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,

¶73

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9155 CRL.P No. 102749 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 103380 of 2023

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

148, 323, 324, 109, 504, 506(2), 307, 353 and 326 read

¶76

with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶77

The brief facts of the prosecution case, which is as under:

¶78

On 05.01.2016 at around 1:00 p.m., the petitioner – accused No.3 along with the other co-accused, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly near Shri Somanath Temple, armed with sticks, they assaulted the complainant using a fire stick, attempted to murder him by strangling his neck, obstructed public officials from performing their duties, and issued life threats with dire consequences. Based on these allegations, a complaint was filed, which led to registration of an FIR and the initiation of investigation.

¶79

Now, the de facto complainant and the petitioners have resolved the issues held between them. In view of settlement, the petitioners and the de facto complainant have filed a joint application under Section

¶80

7 -

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9155 CRL.P No. 102749 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 103380 of 2023

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

482 read with Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The contents of joint

¶84

application read as under:

¶85

“1) That for the reason stated in the accompanying affidavits this Hon'ble Court may kindly permit the parties to compound the proceedings in S.C No: 1/2017 pending before the learned Principle Sessions and Special Judge Koppal for the offences punishable U/s., 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 504, 506(2) registered in Crime No: 1/2016 of Hanumasagar police, in the interest of justice.

¶86

2) It is submitted that the petitioners in both the petitions and the complainant have both resolved the dispute at the intervention of entire village as the case resulted in complete disharmony in the village as all the village members are made party to the criminal case.

¶87

3) It is submitted that the incident was happened accidentally as no one was aware that such an incident will takes place and the same has resulted due to some civil disputes between the parties and hence the elders of the village have intervened and advised both the parties to settle the dispute and the same has been done to maintain peace and harmony in the village and in the incident no one was got hurt seriously and hence the alleged

¶88

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9155 CRL.P No. 102749 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 103380 of 2023

¶89

8 -

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

offences are incorporated by the police and if the same is not compounded both sides will be put to great hardship, and on the contrary if the same is allowed no loss or hardship will be caused to anybody. It is submitted that this Hon'ble court be pleased to consider the reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying this application as part and parcel of this application as all the complainant and all the injured persons have filed their affidavits for compounding the cases lodged against the petitioners in both the petitions to meet the ends of justice and equity.

¶92

Hence it is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble court to meet the ends of justice and to maintain peace and tranquility in the village permit both the Complainant and petitioners/Accused persons to compound the offences. alleged against them in Crime No: 1/2016 registered by the Hanumasagar police and later on the same has been committed to the District and Sessions Judge Special Court at Koppal in SC No: 1/2017 for the offences punishable under section U/s. 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 109, 504, 506(2), 307, 533, 326 R/w 149 of IPC in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶93

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended

¶94

that the injuries sustained by the complainant and other

¶95

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9155 CRL.P No. 102749 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 103380 of 2023

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

injured persons are minor in nature, and the offences arises out of a personal and private dispute, with no element of public interest or serious criminality involved.

¶98

In view of the above facts and considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another¹ , where it was held that the criminal proceedings involving personal disputes and minor injuries can be quashed upon genuine compromise to secure the ends of justice. The Apex Court observed that the Courts have power under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) to quash criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable offences if the parties have settled the matter amicably, especially where the dispute is private and personal in nature.

¶99

In the instant case, the de facto complainant

¶100

and the other injured parties have resolved their disputes.

¶101

1 2014 (6) SCC 466

¶102

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9155 CRL.P No. 102749 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 103380 of 2023

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

However, there remains an allegation of assault or use of criminal force against public servants, who are not before the Court. Therefore, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire proceedings may be permitted to be compounded, except for the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶105

There is no prohibition under the law for quashing the charge sheet in part. Having regard to the settled legal position on external interference in investigation and considering the specific facts of this case, this Court is of the view that, in order to secure the

¶106

ends of justice, particularly as the incident involves members of the entire village, there is no prohibition against quashing the charge sheet in part. However, since there are specific allegations of assault or use of criminal force against a public servant, the offences pertaining to such conduct cannot be quashed.

¶107

11 -

¶108

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9155 CRL.P No. 102749 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 103380 of 2023

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh

¶111

Verma vs. The State of Uttarakhand and another² at

¶112

para 9 has held as under:

¶113

“9. Having regard to the settled legal position on external interference in investigation and the specific facts of this case, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice. There is no prohibition under law for quashing a charge-sheet in part. A person may be accused of several offences under different penal statutes, as in the instant case. He could be aggrieved of prosecution only on a particular charge or charges, on any ground available to him in law. Under Section 482, all that the High Court is required to examine is whether its intervention is required for implementing orders under the Criminal Procedure Code or for prevention of abuse of process, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. A charge-sheet filed at the dictate of somebody other than the police would amount to abuse of the process of law and hence the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 to the extent of the abuse.”

¶114

2 AIR 2020 SCC 5584 / (2020) 10 SCC 710

¶115

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9155 CRL.P No. 102749 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 103380 of 2023

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

Therefore, considering the principles laid down

¶118

in Narinder Singh and Hitesh Verma cases, this Court is of the view that the continuation of the trial would not serve any useful purpose. This case is fit for quashing the proceedings insofar as the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 109, 504, 506(2), 307, and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, except for the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. All the petitioners shall face trial before the Trial Court in respect of the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶119

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶120

ORDER

¶121

i. The criminal petitions are allowed.

¶122

ii. The charge sheet and the impugned order dated 23.02.2023 passed in S.C. No.1/2017 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal (arising out of Crime No. 1/2016 of Hanumasagar Police Station, Taluk Kushtagi, District Koppal), insofar as they relate to the

¶123

13 -

¶124

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9155 CRL.P No. 102749 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 103380 of 2023

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 109, 504, 506(2), 307, and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby quashed. However, the proceedings shall continue in respect of the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶127

iii. Petitioners shall face trial before the jurisdictional Court in respect of the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶128

iv. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed off.

¶129

v. The Registry to intimate this order to the Trial Court, forthwith, for further action, in accordance with law.

¶130

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶131

Rsh /ct-an List no.: 2 sl no.: 36

Shri Nagaraj S/O. Siddalingayya Hiremath, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Nagaraj S/O. Siddalingayya Hiremath, 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

Rajabi Bashasab Nadaf Vs the State of Karnataka

Nitin S/O Suresh Hulwan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shivanand Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Swaraj S/O. Yallari Nakadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sarojini Narasinganavar W/O Fakkirappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Raghunath Ananda Rokhade Vs the State of Karnataka