Shivananda Karikatti Vs the State of Karnataka

KUM. HANUMANTHAMMA D/O LATE BOGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT SASIVEGATTA ROAD, SOLADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU CITY - 560 107.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR M.V., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. CHNADRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:50335 CRL.P No. 16190 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.986/2023 REGISTERED FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(n), 417, 323 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST ACT BY SOLADEVANAHALLI P.S. BENGALURU IN CR.NO.167/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2^ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Petitioner is the sole accused in Spl.C.No.986/2023 pending on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶25

Charge sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 417, 323 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶26

This petition is preferred under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of the entire proceedings pending against the petitioner.

¶27

The law was set into motion by respondent No.2 and based on her complaint, a case in Crime

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:50335 CRL.P No. 16190 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

No.167/2023 came to be registered at Soladevanahali

¶32

Police Station, Bengaluru City.

¶33

Learned counsel Sri. G. S. Chandrashekahar has filed vakalath for respondent No.2 / defacto complainant. Further, a joint memo is filed under Section 359 read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, supported by affidavit of the petitioner as well as second respondent.

¶34

Paragraph Nos.1 to 6 of the joint memo are

¶35

extracted here under:-

¶36

"1. The petitioner and 2^nd respondent submits that both were known each other and had love affair since last Two years they leaved together for short period due to some misunderstanding she lodge a complaint against the petitioner alleging that she asked the petitioner to marry her but he refused and abused and threatened her with dare consequences hence she requested the 1^st respondent Police to take legal action they registered in their Crime No.167/2023 for an offences punishable under section 376(2)(n), 417, 323 of IPC, and section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. and conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the petitioner in Spl.C.No.986/2023, for an offences punishable under section 376(2)(n), 417, 323 of IPC,

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:50335 CRL.P No. 16190 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

and section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, now pending before Hon'ble II Addl. District and sessions judge, Bangalore rural District.

¶41

2. we state that the petitioner and 2^nd respondent entered in to compromise before the elders of the family and well-wishers not to proceed the criminal case each other with free will and consent and there was no force or threat each other in their personal life and they agreed they will not interfere with each other.

¶42

3. we submits that in terms of the settlement arrived between the parties the respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw the proceedings pending No.986/2023 by its Crime No.167/2023 of Soladevanahalli Police Bangalore District, for an offences punishable under section pending before the Hon'ble II Addl. District and sessions judge, Bangalore rural District.

¶43

5. We submits that there has been no collusion or force fraud or any undue influence entering into this compromise in the aforesaid manner similarly both the parties have no future claims each other

¶44

6. We submits that the parties have affixed our signatures with their free consent without having any misrepresentation, fraud and undue influence."

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50335 CRL.P No. 16190 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Petitioner as well as respondent No.2 / defacto

¶48

complainant are present before the Court. They are identified by the learned counsel appearing for them. Respondent No.2 / defacto complainant submits that matter has been compromised and therefore, she do not wish to continue with the case any further, and she has no objection to quash the proceedings. She further submits that there is no collusion or force or any undue influence for entering into compromise with the petitioner.

¶49

Joint memo and the affidavit are placed in

¶50

record.

¶51

The offences alleged are non-compoundable in nature. However, the parties have filed the memo along with their affidavits reporting settlement. Respondent No.2 present before the Court has submitted no objection to quash the proceedings in view of the settlement.

¶52

The allegations are that the petitioner with a false promise of marriage, induced the complainant / second respondent to have physical

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:50335 CRL.P No. 16190 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

relationship with her and then cheated her etc. It is not in dispute that the second respondent is a major aged about 27 years.

¶57

In view of the settlement between the parties,

¶58

no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶59

At this juncture it is useful to refer to paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635 .

¶60

“9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the opinion that two questions fall for our consideration in the present appeal. First, whether the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of a "non-compoundable" offence? If yes, then whether the power to quash proceedings can be extended to offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act?

¶61

10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem to outrightly refer to the recent

¶62

7 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:50335 CRL.P No. 16190 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

decision of this Court in Ramgopal v. State of M.P. (2022) 14 SCC 531 : 2021 SCC Online SC 834, wherein, a two-Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (N.V. Ramana, CJI g & Surya Kant, J.) was confronted with an identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified that the jurisdiction of a court under Section 320 CrPC cannot be construed as a proscription against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC. It was further held that the touchstone for exercising the extraordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482 CrPC, would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent powers.”

¶66

In the above facts and circumstances, the inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court can be exercised to quash the proceedings, in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the following:-

¶67

8 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:50335 CRL.P No. 16190 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

ORDER

¶71

i) Petition is allowed .

¶72

ii) The entire proceedings in Spl.C.No.986/2023 pending on the file of the Court of Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Benaluru, are quashed .

¶73

iii) I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of.

¶74

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶75

LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81

Shivananda Karikatti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivananda Karikatti 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

Sri. Hemanth S Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Shihabuddin Vs the State of Karnataka

Eashan Shetty Vs the State

Sri Veera Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri E Suresh Vs State by Cen Crime Ps

Mr Arif Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka