Allowed¶34

Vikas v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2025CRL.P/12146/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings; inherent jurisdiction Section 482 CrPC; Section 528 BNSS; Crime No.145/2025 Madanayakanahalli Police Station; Sections 316(2) and 318(4) BNS 2023; I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC Nelamangala; Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.08.2025; amicable settlement of dispute outside Court; complainant's voluntary consent to withdraw; dispute essentially civil in nature; continuance would serve no fruitful purpose; Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings quashed; High Court of Karnataka; single judge Sachin Shankar Magadum.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings in Cr.No.145/2025 of Madanayakanahalli Police Station pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala. ¶34

Vikas Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the entire proceedings in Cr.No.145/2025 of Madanayakanahalli Police Station pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in Cr.No.145/2025 (offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023) pending before the I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala should be quashed in exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶25

Court's answer

The dispute essentially arises out of a civil transaction and the terms of settlement recorded in the Memorandum of Understanding fully address the grievances of the parties; the complainant, who was present before the Court, voluntarily expressed his consent to withdraw from the criminal proceedings.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

In light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, and since continuance of the proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose, it is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to secure the ends of justice by quashing the criminal case.

¶31

Key takeaways

The Criminal Petition is allowed.ratio¶34
The proceedings in Crime No.145/2025 pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala are hereby quashed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRL.P No. 12146 of 2025 — Vikas S/o Late Ananppaiah v. State of Karnataka (Madanayakanahalli Police Station) & Anr. — High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 24-09-2025 by Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. The accused's petition under S. 482 CrPC (also filed citing S. 528 BNSS) sought quashing of the proceedings in Cr.No.145/2025 of Madanayakanahalli Police Station for offences under Ss. 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023, pending before the I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala. A Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.08.2025 was filed recording that the parties had amicably resolved their dispute outside Court and that the second respondent/complainant did not wish to prosecute the criminal case further; the complainant, present before the Court, voluntarily consented to withdraw. Finding the dispute essentially civil in origin, the settlement fully addressed the parties' grievances, and the continuance of proceedings fruitless, the Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under S. 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice, allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:39019 CRL.P No. 12146 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12146 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VIKAS S/O LATE ANANPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO 117, 25 CROSS MARUTHI NAGARA, DODDA BASTHI ROA BANGLAORE- 560 056 BENGALURU CITY KARNATAKA

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PURUSHOTHAMA H.E..,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MADANAYAKANAHLLI POLICE STATION BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILIDING BENGALURU- 560 001

¶15

HARISHA N S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO 16, SHRI RAM NILAY BHARATHA NAGAR, 2ND STAGE BYADARAHALLI VILLGE BENGALURU DIST- 560 091 KARNATAKA

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:39019 CRL.P No. 12146 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI.K, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. K.J.GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.145/2025 OF MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE THE O/P/U/S 316(2) AND 318(4) OF THE BNS, 2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT AT NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DIST.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed by the accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Cr.No.145/2025 on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC., Nelamangala for the offence punishable under Section 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023.

¶26

Today, a memo has been filed placing on record a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.08.2025. In terms of the said Memorandum of Understanding, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute outside the Court. It is further stated that in view of the settlement, the second respondent/complainant does not wish to prosecute the criminal case any further.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:39019 CRL.P No. 12146 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Upon perusal of the Memorandum of Understanding and on considering the submissions of the parties, this Court finds that the dispute essentially arises out of a civil transaction and that the terms of settlement recorded in the Memorandum of Understanding fully address the grievances of the parties. The complainant, who is present before this Court, has also voluntarily expressed his consent to withdraw from the criminal proceedings.

¶31

In the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties and having regard to the fact that the continuance of the proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to secure the ends of justice by quashing the criminal case.

¶32

5. Accordingly, the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34