Sri Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO: (I) CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORD PERTAINS TO CC.NO.1375/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. JMFC, TARIKERE AT CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT; (II) QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1375/2023 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 323, 324, 326, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. JMFC, TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, AS BEING AN ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF LAW.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:45899 CRL.P No. 12675 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 5031 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

IN CRL.P NO. 5031/2022

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

SRI. SIDDARAMAPPA S/O LATE MUDALAGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶35

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE MUDALAGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

¶36

BOTH ARE R/O GOKULA, SOLLAPURA VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 547.

¶37

...PETITIONERS

¶38

(BY SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶39

AND:

¶40

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AJJAMPURA POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶41

SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O. ANANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, SOLLAPURA VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 547.

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. KASHINATH, J.D., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶44

4 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:45899 CRL.P No. 12675 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 5031 of 2022

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.116/2022 OF AJJAMPURA POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 323, 354B, 504, 506 AND 34 OF IPC 1860, PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶48

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

¶49

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶50

ORAL ORDER

¶51

Crl.P 12675/2025 arise out of Crime No.117/2022 of

¶52

Ajjampura Police Station, Chikkamagaluru registered for the offence punishable under Section 504, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶53

Crl.P 5031/2022 arise out of Crime

¶54

No.116/2022 of Ajjampura Police Station, Chikkamagaluru registered for the offence punishable under Section 504, 323, 354(B), 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶55

In both the petitions, petitioners are seeking to quash the entire proceedings pending against them before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Tarikere, Chikkamagaluru.

¶56

5 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:45899 CRL.P No. 12675 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 5031 of 2022

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

The matter arise out of a case and counter case

¶60

registered against each other, in respect of an incident which took place on 07.05.2022 at 7.30 – 7.45 p.m.

¶61

In Crime No.117/2022, the first informant is

¶62

one Siddramappa S.M., and he is the injured in the said case. FIR is registered against accused Nos.1 to 4, petitioners in Crl.P No.12675/2025. The Police have filed chargesheet in the said case against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 326, 504, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶63

Crime No.116/2022 is registered on a complaint lodged by one Smt. Shashikala against accused Nos.1 and 2, petitioners in Crl.P No.5031/2022. The said case is under investigation.

¶64

Applications are filed in both the petitions under

¶65

Section 320 of Cr.P.C., to permit the parties to compound the case. Applications are signed by the petitioners as well as respondent No.2/defacto complainant in both the

¶66

6 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:45899 CRL.P No. 12675 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 5031 of 2022

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

petitions, except petitioner No.2 in Crl.P No.5031/2022. It

¶70

is submitted that the said petitioner is aged about 74 years and she is suffering from cancer.

¶71

In the applications filed in both the petitions, it

¶72

is stated that the complainants and their family members along with the petitioners have come forward, voluntarily and decided to resolve all the disputes. Respondent No.2/defacto complainants have undertaken that they shall maintain cordial relationship and shall not indulge in acts leading to further disputes. Further undertakes that whatever the civil dispute arises, they will urge their legal rights before the competent authority of the Court.

¶73

In terms of the applications, both the parties have settled the disputes among themselves. The defacto complainant in both the cases are present before the Court. They submit that they have settled the disputes and therefore, they are not interested in proceeding with the complaints lodged against each other and they have no objection to quash the proceedings initiated by them.

¶74

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45899 CRL.P No. 12675 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 5031 of 2022

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

The material on record goes to show that the

¶77

incident took place on account of civil dispute.

¶78

Accused/petitioners in both the cases are alleged to have picked up quarrel, abused the complainant and others and assaulted them etc. In Crime No.117/2022, it is alleged that one of the accused assaulted the complainant with a club on his head. Though the chargesheet is filed invoking Section 326 of IPC, based on the wound certificate, it is relevant to see that the FIR was not registered under the said provision of IPC. As per the wound certificate of injured/complainant namely, Siddaramappa, the injury sustained by him is measuring 3×2 cms on the right frontal region. It is clearly stated in the wound certificate that there is no evidence of fracture. Even according to the complainant in the said case, the accused are alleged to picked up a club which was lying on the ground and assaulted the injured.

¶79

Insofar as Crime No.116/2022, it is alleged that the accused have picked up quarrel with the complainant,

¶80

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45899 CRL.P No. 12675 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 5031 of 2022

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

abused her in filthy language and dragged by her tuft and assaulted and kicked her etc. No serious injuries are caused to the complainant.

¶83

The complainants in both the cases present before the Court have submitted that they have resolved the disputes among themselves and they are not interested in proceeding with the matter any further. Hence, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings pending against the petitioners.

¶84

In Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , it is held that “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

¶85

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:45899 CRL.P No. 12675 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 5031 of 2022

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

¶88

The parties have reached the settlement and on that basis, they have filed applications. The incident took place on account of a civil dispute. In the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that

¶89

the power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (482 of Cr.P.C) vested in this Court can be exercised, to meet the ends of justice. Hence the following:

¶90

ORDER

¶91

Applications are allowed. Consequently, both the petitions are allowed .

¶92

The entire proceedings arising out of Crime No.117/2022 of Ajjampura Police Station, pending in C.C.No.1375/2023 and Crime No.116/2022 of Ajjampura, Police Station, both pending on the file of Court of Civil Judge and Additional JMFC, Tarikere, Chikkamagaluru are quashed.

¶93

10 -

¶94

NC: 2025:KHC:45899 CRL.P No. 12675 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 5031 of 2022

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

Pending I.As are disposed of.

¶97

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶98

HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 92

Sri Manjunatha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunatha 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

Manjunath K.R Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Kamala D Vs Smt. Pavithra

Mallappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Saira Lahir Alias Saira Kamal Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shakila P Shetty Vs Sri M S Srikantha

Sri P Vijayashekar Vs State of Karnataka