Jayanth B @ Bale Chikka Bale Vs State of Karnataka

JAYANTH B @ BALE CHIKKA BALE S/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/A NO.28, 1^ST CROSS MAHADESHWARA NAGARA NEAR CANARA BANK ATM VISHWANIDAM POST SUNKADAKATTE BENGALURU-560091

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

MANU V @ PATIL S/O LATE VEERENDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/A NO.12 NEAR SOLLAPURADAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, INFRONT OF GOVT SCHOOL NAYANDAHALLI BENGALURU-560039

¶13

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ADARSHA. R., ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:41538 CRL.P No. 10448 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANDRALAYOUT P S BENGALURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶19

KESHAVMURTHY R S/O RAJAGOPAL AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS NO.14, 1^ST A CROSS OPPOSITE RAILWAY STATION SEEBE THOTA NAYANDAHALLI BENGALURU-560 039

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.ROHAN S. ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SC.NO.139/2025, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, 1860, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, INITIATED BY RESPONDENT NO.A IN CHANDRALAYOUT P.S.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

¶24

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:41538 CRL.P No. 10448 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Petitioners No.1 and 2 are before this Court praying to

¶31

quash the entire proceedings pending against them in S.C.No.139/2025 on the file of the learned LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶32

An application is filed along with the joint affidavit of the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant seeking permission to compound the offences in view of the settlement arrived between them.

¶33

It is stated that petitioners No.1 and 2 and the 2^nd respondent / defacto complainant are known to each other for many years and they are residing in the same locality. Due to the intervention of the family members, relatives and wellwishers, they have decided to resolve the disputes between them.

¶34

Petitioners No. 1 and 2 and the 2^nd respondent / defacto complainant are present before the Court. They would

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:41538 CRL.P No. 10448 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

submit that the matter has been settled. The 2^nd respondent / defacto complainant submits that in view of the amicable settlement, he does not desire to pursue the matter further.

¶39

The offences alleged are under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. As per the case of prosecution, on 09.04.2024 at about 11.20 p.m. accused Nos. 1 to 3 allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant / respondent No.2 with hands and accused No.1 tried to stab him with a knife causing bleeding injuries to his forearm and all the accused threatened him with dire consequences.

¶40

It is seen that the parties are known to each other. The incident took place in the heat of the moment and in a sudden quarrel. Though, it is alleged that one of the accused tried to stab the complainant with a knife, as per the wound certificate, the complainant has sustained one simple injury to his left arm measuring 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm. It cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the accused to do away with the life of the complainant/respondent No.2. Further more, it is stated in the joint affidavit that the petitioners themselves took the complainant to the hospital and provided him medical

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:41538 CRL.P No. 10448 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

treatment. The ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not attracted, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶45

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and

¶46

Others V. State of Punjab and Another reported in

¶47

(2014) 6 SCC 466 at paragraphs 8 and 24 has held as

¶48

under :

¶49

"8. We find that there are cases where

¶50

the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in those offences which are uncompoundable has been recognised. The only difference is that under Section 320(1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has discretionary power to refuse to compound the offence. However, compounding under Section 320(1) of the Code is permissible only in minor offences or in non serious offences. Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in respect of the offences enumerated in Section 320(2) of the Code, compounding is permissible but it requires the approval of the Court. Insofar as serious offences are

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:41538 CRL.P No. 10448 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

concerned, quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise is within the discretionary powers of the High Court. In such cases, the power is exercised under Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are quashed. Contours of these powers were described by this Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, which has been followed and further explained / elaborated in so many cases thereafter, which are taken note of in the discussion that follows hereinafter."

¶55

"24. The two rival parties have amicably settled the disputes between themselves and buried the hatchet. Not only this, they say that since they are neighbours, they want to live like good neighbours and that was the reason for restoring friendly ties. In such a scenario, should the court give its imprimatur to such a settlement? The answer depends on various incidental aspects which need serious discourse. The legislators have categorically recognized that those offences which are covered by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code are concededly those which not only do not fall within the category of heinous crimes but also which are personal between the

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:41538 CRL.P No. 10448 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

parties. Therefore, this provision recognizes where there is a compromise between the parties, the court is to act at the said compromise and quash the proceedings. However, even in respect of such offences not covered within the four corners of Section 320 of the Code, the High Court is given power under Section 482 of the Code to accept the compromise between the parties and quash the proceedings. The guiding factor is as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, both the ultimate consequences may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. This is so recognized in various judgments taken note of above."

¶60

The parties have amicably settled the disputes

¶61

between themselves. They have stated that they are known to each other for several years and residing in the very same locality. This Court is of the considered view that, no purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings pending against the petitioners. Hence, in the light of the joint affidavit filed by the respective parties and to meet the ends of justice, the

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41538 CRL.P No. 10448 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

entire proceedings deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i. The petition is allowed.

¶67

ii. The entire proceedings pending in S.C.No.139/2025 before the LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under

¶68

Sections 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC are hereby quashed as against petitioners No. 1 and 2 / accused Nos. 1 and 2.

¶69

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶70

JS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Jayanth B @ Bale Chikka Bale v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanth B @ Bale Chikka Bale 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Dyamanna D Vs Sri Narasimhamurthy C

Kunna Sunna Vs State of Karnataka

Poonaram Vs State of Karnataka

Sailesh Kumar Vs M/S Grs Enterprises

Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramesh K N Vs State of Karnataka