Sri Rahul v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2025CRL.P/15126/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Mohammad Nawaz, J., 07.11.2025) allows CRL.P No. 15126 of 2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:45539) by Rahul v. State of Karnataka & Darshan C D: quashes S.C.No.1224/2025 (Crime No.6/2025) under Sections 109 and 352 BNS 2023 on amicable settlement; Section 109 BNS non-compoundable and heinous, but inherent power under Section 528 BNSS 2023 exercised in the interest of justice; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, relied on; injuries not life threatening; victim not interested in continuing.

What did the court decide?

I.A.No.2/2025 allowed; petition allowed; entire proceedings in S.C.No. 1224/2025 pending before the LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-64) quashed; I.A.No.1/2025 disposed of. ¶65-66

Sri Rahul Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶65-66

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in S.C.No.1224/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 109 and 352 of BNS, 2023 — the offence under Section 109 BNS being non-compoundable — can be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, in view of the amicable settlement between the petitioner/accused and the defacto complainant/victim.

¶58

Court's answer

The offence alleged under Section 109 of BNS, 2023 is a non-compoundable offence; it falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and is generally to be treated as a crime against the Society.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The injuries sustained by the complainant were not life threatening injuries, and the parties filed a joint petition reporting settlement.

¶57

Key takeaways

Even though the offence alleged is non-compoundable in nature, the inherent power of the Court can be exercised, in order to meet the ends of justice, where the parties have amicably settled and the defacto complainant/victim is not interested in proceeding further and has no objection to quashing.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 15126 of 2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:45539) — High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Mohammad Nawaz, J.), decided 07.11.2025 — Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (filed as under Section 482 Cr.P.C) to quash entire proceedings in S.C.No.1224/2025 (Crime No.6/2025, Rajarajeshwari Nagar P.S., Bengaluru) for offences punishable under Sections 109 and 352 of BNS, 2023, pending before the LXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-64) — Offence under Section 109 BNS held to be non-compoundable, heinous and serious, and generally a crime against society — Accused and defacto complainant/victim known to each other and working in the same salon; dispute arose from personal differences on 11.01.2025; injuries sustained were not life threatening; parties filed a joint petition reporting amicable settlement and respondent No.2 stated he was not interested in proceeding further and had no objection to quashing — Principles in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, relied upon (paras 29.6 and 29.7 extracted) — Held: even though the offence alleged is non-compoundable, inherent power of the Court can be exercised to meet the ends of justice — Petition allowed; entire proceedings quashed; I.A.No.2/2025 allowed; I.A.No.1/2025 disposed of.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:45539 CRL.P No. 15126 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15126 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI RAHUL S/O RAJAKUMAR HADPAD AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT 6^TH CROSS, BANGARAPPA NAGAR RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098 PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO.14-39/36 KANAKA NAGAR, SULEPET, CHINCHOLI, SULTANPET, GULBARGA – 585 324

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. ARAVIND SHIVANAGOWDA BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶16

DARSHAN C D

¶17

S/O DINESH H K AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT 6^TH CROSS,

¶18

BANGARAPPA NAGAR

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45539 CRL.P No. 15126 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR YARAGANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.1224/2025 (CRIME NO.6/2025) VIDE ANNEXURE-D PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE LXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-64), FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109 AND 352 OF B.N.S IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is preferred by the accused in Crime No.6/2025 of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, registered for an offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS, 2023, to quash the entire proceedings.

¶29

Chargesheet is filed for the offence punishable under Section 109 and 352 of BNS, 2023. Case is pending on the file of the Court of LXIII Additional City Civil and

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45539 CRL.P No. 15126 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-64) in

¶33

S.C.No.1224/2025.

¶34

An application is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for compounding the offence.

¶35

It is stated that the petitioner and respondent No.2/defacto complainant/victim have settled all their disputes amicably and in view of the settlement so arrived, respondent No.2 is not interested to continue the case registered against the petitioner.

¶36

Material on record reveals that,

¶37

petitioner/accused No.1 and respondent No.2/defacto complainant are known to each other and they are working in the same salon. Due to some personal differences, on 11.01.2025 at about 9 p.m., accused is alleged to have picked up quarrel with the complainant, abused him in filthy language and made an attempt on his life by stabbing him with a beer bottle on his abdomen.

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45539 CRL.P No. 15126 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The chargesheet is filed for the offence under

¶41

Section 109 and 352 of BNS, 2023. The offence alleged under 109 of BNS, 2023 is a non-compoundable offence. It falls in the category of heinous and serious offence and generally to be treated as crime against the Society.

¶42

In Narinder Singh and others v. State of

¶43

Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that 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: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

¶44

In the said judgment, in certain circumstances, quashing of proceedings initiated under Section 307 IPC has been approved when the parties have reached the settlement. The Court has to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:45539 CRL.P No. 15126 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. It is relevant to extract para 29.6 and 29.7 of the said judgment.

¶49

“29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45539 CRL.P No. 15126 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the chargesheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”

¶53

In the present case, the parties are known to

¶54

each other for several years. They are working at same

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45539 CRL.P No. 15126 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

place. Due to some differences, the petitioner is alleged to have picked up quarrel and on that moment it is alleged that he has stabbed the complainant with a beer bottle. The injury sustained are not life threatening injuries. The parties have filed a joint petition reporting settlement.

¶58

Petitioner and respondent No.2 are present before the Court. Respondent No.2 submits that in view of the settlement, he is not interested in proceeding with the matter any further and he has no objection to quash the proceedings. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that even though the offence alleged is non-compoundable in nature, inherent power of the Court can be exercised, in order to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

I.A.No.2/2025 is allowed. Consequently, the petition

¶61

is allowed.

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:45539 CRL.P No. 15126 of 2025

¶63

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65