Disposed¶101

Manu C @ Madenuru Manu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2025CRL.P/11325/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings on joint compromise/compounding; S. 482 Cr.P.C / S. 528 BNSS petition; offences under Ss. 64(2)(m), 69, 89, 318(4), 351(2), 352 BNS 2023; Crime No.181/2025; CC.No.26047/2025; VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore; de facto complainant affidavit withdrawing support; joint compromise memo under S. 528 r/w S. 359 BNSS; reliance on Madhukar v. State of Maharashtra and Prabhakar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 710; High Court of Karnataka; S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.; petition disposed of with proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings in CC.No.26047/2025 pending before the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru. ¶101

Manu C @ Madenuru Manu Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the entire proceedings in CC.No.26047/2025 pending before the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶101

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in CC.No.26047/2025 (Crime No.181/2025), for offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 69, 89, 318(4), 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023, pending before the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore, should be quashed in view of the joint compromise petition and affidavit of respondent No.2/complainant consenting to compound the offences.

¶32

Court's answer

In view of the facts and circumstances and the joint application and affidavit filed by the complainant, the Judge deemed it appropriate to dispose of the petition by quashing the impugned proceedings.

¶98

Ratio / Principle

In view of the joint application and the affidavit filed by respondent No.2/complainant, the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.26047/2025 pending on the file of the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, stand quashed.

¶101

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Section 528 BNSS filed by Manu C @ Madenuru Manu praying to quash the entire proceedings in CC.No.26047/2025 (Crime No.181/2025) — offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 69, 89, 318(4), 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023 — pending before the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore. During admission, the petitioner and respondent No.2 (the de facto complainant) filed a joint compromise petition under Section 528 r/w Section 359 BNSS with her affidavit stating that she no longer wishes to pursue the criminal proceedings, does not intend to support the prosecution, and consents to compounding of the offences. Relying on the Apex Court decision in Madhukar v. The State of Maharashtra and Prabhakar v. The State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 710, where settlement between the parties led to quashing of proceedings including those involving Section 376 IPC, the Court (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.) deemed it appropriate to dispose of the petition by quashing the impugned proceedings, and accordingly quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.26047/2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30816 CRL.P No. 11325 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶5

AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11325 OF 2025

¶9

[482(Cr.PC)/ 528(BNSS)]

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MANU C @ MADENURU MANU S/O. LATE CHANDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI,

¶12

MADENUR, HASSAN-573 225,

¶13

NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA.

¶14

(ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FIR)

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

(BY SRI. CHANDAN B.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BHADRAVADI SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATES)

¶17

AND:

¶18

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.13 14:43:58 +0530

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR P.S., REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶20

BANGALORE-560 001.

¶21

SMT. VATHASALA. M.S. DAUGHTER OF LATE SURESH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, NO.1246, VISHNU NILAYA, 9^TH BLOCK, NAGARABAVI 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 072.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. BASAVARAJ R.Y., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:30816 CRL.P No. 11325 of 2025

¶25

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C (UNDER SECTION 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO. 26047/2025, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 64(2)(M),69,89,318(4),351(2),352 OF BNS, 2023, PENDING BEFORE THE VI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

In this criminal petition, the petitioner seeks following

¶31

reliefs.

¶32

a) To quash the entire proceedings in CC.No.26047/2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 69, 89, 318(4), 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023, which is pending before the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore, against the petitioner;

¶33

b) And pass such other relief/s as this Honb’le court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶35

High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:30816 CRL.P No. 11325 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

¶40

The petitioner and respondent No.2 have filed a joint compromise petition seeking permission to compound the offences. The said compromise petition and affidavit filed by respondent No.2 read as under:

¶41

“APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 528 R/W 359 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023

¶42

The Petitioner and the Victim in the above case most humbly file the following joint compromise memo for compounding the offences.

¶43

1. The Petitioner is facing the trail in Crime No.181/2025 in CC No. 26047/2025 which is pending before the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore for the offences punishable under sections 64(2)(m), 69, 89, 318(4), 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023, the Petitioner have approached this Hon'ble Court. The matter is posted for summons.

¶44

2. The Respondent respectfully submits that she no longer wishes to pursue the present criminal proceedings and does not intend to support the case of the prosecution. The parties have amicably settled their differences and, in view of the mutual understanding arrived at between them, have consented to compound

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:30816 CRL.P No. 11325 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

the offence in accordance with law. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take on record the said settlement and, in the interest of justice, be pleased to quash the proceedings arising out of the said complaint.

¶49

3. The petitioner humbly submits that, this Hon'ble court pleased to be read the averments made in the main petition as part & parcel of this application to avoid repetition.

¶50

WHEREFORE, the petitioner and Victim most humbly pray this Hon'ble court be pleased to accept their joint compromise affidavit and permit them compound the offences made against him in Crime No.181/2025 in CC No. 26047/2025 which is pending before the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore for the offences punishable under sections 64(2)(m), 69, 89, 318(4), 351(2), 352. of BNS, 2023, the Petitioner have approached this Hon'ble Court in the ends of justice.

¶51

AFFIDAVIT

¶52

I, Vathsala Madapura Suresh, D/o. Suresh, Aged about 36 years, R/at. No.10/8, 7th Cross, Lakshmi Layout, Munnekolala, Marathahalli Colony, Bengaluru560037, today at Dharwad, do hereby state on oath as follows:-

¶53

1. I am the defacto complainant in CC.No.26047/2025 in Crime No.181/2025, which is presently pending on the file of the Court of the Hon'ble

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:30816 CRL.P No. 11325 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru. I am fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, hence swearing this affidavit.

¶58

2. The accused have filed a criminal petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C r/w., 528 of BNSS for quashing the entire investigation CC.26047/2025 in Crime pending before the above court in Cr. No.181/2025, before this Hon'ble Court. I respectfully state that I no longer wish to pursue the present criminal proceedings and do not intend to support the case of the prosecution. The parties have amicably resolved their differences and, in view of the mutual understanding arrived at between us, have consented to compound the offence in accordance with law. Accordingly, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take on record the said settlement and, in the interest of justice, be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings arising out of the said complaint. Since all issues between the parties have been amicably resolved, I have no further interest in continuing with the present proceedings. It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the matter may kindly be quashed.

¶59

VERIFICATION

¶60

I, Vathsala Madapura Suresh, D/o. Suresh, do hereby state that the averments made above in I.A.No.1 at Para 1 to 2 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information.”

¶61

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30816 CRL.P No. 11325 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Under identical circumstances, in the case of

¶64

Madhukar and others Vs. The state of Maharashtra and another and Prabhakar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

¶65

and another¹ , the Apex Court recorded the settlement between the parties and quashed the impugned proceedings by holding as under:

¶66

“1. Leave granted.

¶67

2. The present appeals arise from a common order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench in Criminal Application Nos.2561 and 2185 of 2024, whereby the High Court dismissed the petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants herein.

¶68

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows:

¶69

3.1. FIR bearing Crime No.302 of 2023 dated 20.11.2023 (“1st FIR”) was registered at Mehunbare Police Station, District Jalgaon under Sections 324, 141, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 against the appellants in SLP(Crl) No. 7212 of 2025.

¶70

1 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 710

¶71

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:30816 CRL.P No. 11325 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

3.2. A second FIR bearing Crime No. 304 of 2023 dated 21.11.2023 (“2nd FIR”) was registered at the same police station under Sections 376, 354-A, 354-D, 509, and 506 IPC against the appellant in SLP(Crl) No.7495 of 2025, giving rise to Sessions Case No.29 of 2024.

¶75

3.3. The 1st FIR alleged that on 19.11.2023, the appellants formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the complainant and her family members, including her father Prabhakar (appellant in SLP(Crl) No.7495 of 2025), allegedly due to his role in causing the divorce of one of the appellants.

¶76

3.4. The 2nd FIR, filed the following day, contained grave allegations against Prabhakar, including sexual assault and criminal intimidation. It was alleged that he had sexually exploited the complainant over the time, recorded videos of the act, and interfered with her subsequent matrimonial alliances.

¶77

3.5. However, in March 2024, the complainant in the 2nd FIR filed an affidavit before the High Court expressing her desire not to pursue the prosecution and stating that she had no objection to grant of bail to the accused. She further affirmed that the matter had been amicably resolved, and she had received Rs.5,00,000/towards marriage-related expenses.

¶78

3.6. Based on the above, the appellants moved Criminal Applications Nos.2561 and 2185 of 2024 before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of both FIRs. By a common order dated 07.03.2025, the

¶79

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:30816 CRL.P No. 11325 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

High Court rejected both applications, holding that an offence under Section 376 IPC being of a serious and non-compoundable nature, could not be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement or monetary compensation. The Court concluded that the compromise could not form the basis for quashing proceedings in such cases.

¶83

3.7. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have approached this Court.

¶84

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶85

5. It is brought to our attention that both parties have categorically taken the stand before this Court that they have resolved their disputes amicably and are desirous of moving on with their lives. The complainant in the 2nd FIR, now married and residing with her husband, has expressed that continuation of the prosecution would cause further disruption in her personal life and that she has no wish to support the charges or pursue the matter any further.

¶86

6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.

¶87

¶88

NC: 2025:KHC:30816 CRL.P No. 11325 of 2025

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.

¶91

8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and taking into account the categorical stand taken by the complainant and the nature of the settlement, we are of the opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only amount to abuse of process.

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC:30816 CRL.P No. 11325 of 2025

¶93

10 -

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order of the High Court dated 07.03.2025 is set aside. FIR No.302 of 2023 and FIR No.304 of 2023, along with all proceedings arising therefrom, including Sessions Case No.29 of 2024, stand quashed.

¶96

10. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.”

¶97

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances

¶98

and the joint application and affidavit filed by the complainant, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition by quashing the impugned proceedings.

¶99

Accordingly, the petition is hereby disposed off.

¶100

In view of the joint application and the affidavit

¶101

filed by respondent No.2/complainant, the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.26047/2025 pending on the file of the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed.

¶102

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶103

EM Ct:vh List No.: 19 Sl No.: 5

Manu C @ Madenuru Manu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manu C @ Madenuru Manu 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

The Lead Factory Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Harendra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M Venkatesh Vs Harendra

Sri a M Suresh Raj Vs Smt J Hemalatha

M/S Jsw Steel Limited Vs the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax

Lokanath M D Vs State of Karnataka