Allowed¶49

Mr Usman v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2025CRL.P/11685/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on amicable settlement; compounding of offence under S.140(3) BNS 2023 via joint application under S.359(8) r/w S.528 BNSS; joint affidavit by accused and complainant; complaint lodged over business/financial misunderstanding despite abduction allegation; continuance after settlement held abuse of process; Crime No.79/2025, Yelahanka New Town P.S.; VII ACJM Bengaluru; CRL.P No.11685 of 2025; High Court of Karnataka; Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum; 13 August 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:31482.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; I.A.No.1/2025 (permission to compound the offence under Section 140(3) BNS) allowed; proceedings in Crime No.79/2025 registered by respondent No.1/Police and pending before the VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. ¶49

Mr Usman Vs State of Karnataka by — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the parties should be permitted to compound the offence punishable under Section 140(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, by way of the joint application under Section 359(8) read with Section 528 BNSS (I.A.No.1/2025). +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

Having regard to the joint affidavit and the complainant's submissions, the Court found it just and proper to accept the settlement and allowed the application in I.A.No.1/2025 seeking permission to compound the offence under Section 140(3) BNS.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

Once the parties have resolved their differences and settled the matter, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law; the Court therefore accepted the settlement.

¶41

Key takeaways

The proceedings in Crime No.79/2025 pending before the VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 140(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, stand quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. (S. 528 BNSS) seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No.79/2025 of Yelahanka New Town P.S. for offences punishable under Sections 140(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending before the VII ACJM, Bengaluru. The complaint alleged abduction of respondent No.2's son by the petitioners, but arose out of business transactions and a financial misunderstanding. Petitioners and the complainant jointly applied under Section 359(8) read with Section 528 BNSS to compound the Section 140(3) offence, filing a joint affidavit recording an amicable settlement and no objection to quashing; the complainant appeared in person, disowned the allegations and offered to withdraw the complaint. Held: once the parties have settled, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Petition allowed; I.A.No.1/2025 allowed; proceedings quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Single-judge bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.; decided 13 August 2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:31482 CRL.P No. 11685 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11685 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. USMAN S/O MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A. THANKAYATHIL, CHERPULACHERRY, PALAKKAD, KERALA STATE - 679 503.

¶10

MR. TANAY C HASBI

¶11

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

S/O CHANDRAKANT S HASBI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.130, 4^TH CROSS, EAST OF NGEF, KASTURI NAGAR, KALYANANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA N., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶18

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:31482 CRL.P No. 11685 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶23

MR. K. MUTTU S/O B C KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.51, WHISPERING MEADOWS, VEERASAGAR, ATTURU LAYOUT, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. DILIP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶26

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR PERTAINING TO CR.NO.79/2025 BY YELAHANKA NEW TOWN P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 140(3), 3(5) OF BNS, 2023, PENDING BEFORE THE VII ACJM, BENGALURU, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

A crime is registered against the petitioners alleging

¶30

that respondent No.2/complainant's son was abducted by

¶31

the present petitioners/accused. On receiving the complaint, a crime is registered for the offence punishable

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31482 CRL.P No. 11685 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

under Section 140(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

¶35

Today, an application is filed under Section

¶36

359(8) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking permission of this Court to permit the parties to compound the offence punishable under Section 140(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Along with the said application, a joint affidavit has been filed by the petitioners/accused and respondent No.2/complainant. In the affidavit, the complainant has acknowledged that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and that he has no objection to the quashing of the criminal proceedings. It is further stated that both parties are businessmen and, on account of certain business transactions, a financial misunderstanding had arisen which ultimately resulted in the lodging of the complaint. It is also stated that with the intervention of well-wishers, the dispute has been resolved and no grievance survives.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31482 CRL.P No. 11685 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Respondent No.2/complainant is present before

¶40

this Court. He submits that the allegations made in the complaint are not true and reiterates that the complaint was lodged solely due to financial misunderstanding. He further submits that, in view of the amicable settlement, he has no objection for quashing of the criminal proceedings and expresses his willingness to withdraw the complaint.

¶41

Having regard to the averments made in the joint affidavit as well as the submissions of the complainant, it is evident that the dispute arises out of commercial transactions and that the complainant has voluntarily withdrawn all allegations against the petitioners. Once the parties have resolved their differences and settled the matter, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would, on the contrary, amount to an abuse of the process of law. In these circumstances, this Court finds it just and proper to accept the settlement and quash the

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31482 CRL.P No. 11685 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

proceedings. Accordingly, the application filed in

¶45

I.A.No.1/2025 deserves to be allowed.

¶46

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) The petition is allowed;

¶49

(ii) The proceedings in Crime No.79/2025 registered by respondent No.1/Police and pending on the file of the VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 140(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, stand quashed.

¶50

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶51

¶52

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 121

Mr Usman v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Usman v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.K.S.Shridhar @ Manu @ Rudresh Vs Smt.Ishwarya I M @ Janani

Sri. Ravikumar Vs Smt. Mahima

Sri. M.K Kotresh Vs Sri. Durugappa

Mr. Kaushik. S. Raj Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Usman T @ Usman Thang Ethail Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Venugopal. K. v. Vs the State of Karnataka