Allowed¶72

Sri. Manjunatha, v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2025CRL.P/11077/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings on compromise/settlement between accused and defacto complainant; inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 320 Cr.P.C. not a bar to quashing; non-compoundable offences; death by rash or negligent act — wall collapse during repair of petitioner's house; offences under Sections 336, 338, 304A IPC; joint affidavit of settlement; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466; B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675; C.C.No.20/2024; Crime No.259/2023; Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Shidlaghatta; CRL.P No. 11077 of 2024; High Court of Karnataka; Mohammad Nawaz, J.; decided 15-10-2025.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings pending in C.C.No.20/2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Shidlaghatta quashed; I.A.No.1/2025 disposed of. ¶72

Sri. Manjunatha, Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Entire proceedings pending in C.C.No.20/2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Shidlaghatta quashed; I.A.No.1/2025 disposed of.

¶72

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.20/2024 against the petitioner (sole accused) should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the settlement/compromise between the petitioner and respondent No.2. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The facts of the case and the material on record do not fulfil the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2 having agreed for quashing, this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

¶44

Key takeaways

Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of the power of quashing where quashing becomes necessary for securing the ends of justice.ratio¶64
In view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings pending against the petitioner require to be quashed.ratio¶69

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Mohammad Nawaz, J., 15-10-2025) allowed CRL.P No. 11077 of 2024, filed under S.482 Cr.P.C. (u/S.528 BNSS) by the sole accused in C.C.No.20/2024 (Crime No.259/2023, Shidlaghatta Rural PS) seeking quashing of the chargesheet for offences under Ss.336, 338, 304(A) IPC — the case arose from the death of a coolie who succumbed to injuries when a wall collapsed while he repaired the petitioner's old house. The petitioner and respondent No.2/defacto complainant (son of the deceased) filed an application to compound the case with a joint affidavit reporting full settlement, and the complainant stated he was not interested in continuing. Noting that the material did not fulfil the ingredients of the alleged offences, and relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Court held that Section 320 Cr.P.C. is no bar to quashing where necessary to secure the ends of justice, and quashed the entire proceedings; I.A.No.1/2025 was disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40927 CRL.P No. 11077 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11077 OF 2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. KALEEMULLA SHARIFF, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAVEEN S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SHIDLAGHATTA RURAL P.S., SHIDLAGHATTA CIRCLE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

SRI. VIJAY KUMAR S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/A JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:40927 CRL.P No. 11077 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SRIKANTH N.V., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.20/2024 (CRIME NO.259/2023) ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIDLAGHATTA INITIATED AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED BASED ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 336, 338, 304(A) OF IPC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is preferred by the sole accused in C.C.No.20/2024 pending on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Shidlaghatta, to quash the entire proceedings.

¶27

On a complaint lodged by one Vijay Kumar S/o Narayanaswamy, a case in Crime No.259/2023 was registered at Shidlaghatta Rural Police Station, Chickballapura for the offence punishable under Section 336 and 304A of IPC.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:40927 CRL.P No. 11077 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

In brief, the allegations are that the first informant’s father Narayanaswamy along with CWs.2 and 3 while repairing the house of the petitioner, the wall of the said house fell on them, due to which they sustained injuries and later first Informant’s father succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital.

¶32

Chargesheet is filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 336, 338 and 304A of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that the deceased, working as a coolie, was called by the petitioner to repair his old house on 19.10.2023 and at about 6.00 a.m., when the deceased and others were repairing the wall, the said wall fell on them, due to which, he died while being shifted to the hospital.

¶33

The law was set into motion by the son of the deceased. An application is filed by the petitioner and respondent No.2/defacto complainant to permit them to compound the case. It is stated that the parties have compromised and settled the matter at the intervention of

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40927 CRL.P No. 11077 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

well-wishers and in view of the settlement, respondent No.2 is not wishing to continue with the above case registered against the petitioner. It is further stated that in view of the settlement, petitioner and respondent No.2 have no further claim as against each other.

¶37

In the case on hand, the offences alleged are under Section 336, 338 and 304A of IPC. It has to be shown by the prosecution that the death is caused due to the rash or negligent act by the petitioner. The facts of the case and material on record does not fulfill the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner.

¶38

Petitioner as well as respondent No.2 are present before the Court. Respondent No.2/defacto complainant submits that he is not interested in proceeding further in the matter.

¶39

The application reporting settlement is accompanied with the joint affidavit signed by the petitioner as well as respondent No.2.

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:40927 CRL.P No. 11077 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

¶43

The inherit powers of the High Court ought to

¶44

be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice. Respondent No.2 has agreed for quashing of the proceedings in question. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

¶45

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and Others V. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, at para 29 held as under:

¶46

"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:40927 CRL.P No. 11077 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

¶51

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

¶52

(i) ends of justice, or

¶53

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶54

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶55

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:40927 CRL.P No. 11077 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

¶60

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.”

¶61

In B.S.Joshi and others V. State of Haryana

¶62

and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C., would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶63