Satish M Vs State of Karnataka

BY JEEVAN BHEEMANAGAR POLICE STATION, HALASUR SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

MR. DENISH RAJU S/O KANNIYARAJU, AGE 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: OTHERS, R/AT: C. P. LAYOUT, DEVINAGAR, BENGALURU -560094.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. DEEKSHITH GOWDA S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.288/2025 DTD 07.12.2025 REGISTERED BY JEEVAN BHEEMANAGAR P.S., BENGALURU CITY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS THERE FROM

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:53599 CRL.P No. 16838 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AGAINST THE PETITIONER, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 126(2),115(2),309(4) R/W 35 OF BNS, 2023, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A AND B, HOLDING IT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is preferred under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR in Crime No.288/2025 of Jeevan Bheemanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, registered for the offence Punishable under Section 126(2), 115(2), 309(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

¶27

The law is set in motion by respondent No.2, on the basis of which, aforementioned FIR was registered against petitioner and 5 un-known persons. It is alleged that on 06.12.2025, at about 11:00 p.m. the complainant along with his friend had been to one 'Big picture pub', situated at old Airport Road, Bengaluru City. At about

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:53599 CRL.P No. 16838 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

12:00 – 12:30 in the mid night petitioner along with 5

¶32

others came near the place where the complainant was having dinner and assaulted him with hands, kicked him and snatched the gold chain, bracelet and ring.

¶33

A joint compromise memo is filed signed by the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 and the learned counsel appearing for them. The compromise memo is supported by a joint affidavit signed by the parties.

¶34

It is stated that the dispute has been amicably settled and the alleged pub altercation stands fully resolved, with no further claim or grievance by either party against other.

¶35

It is further stated in the joint affidavit that there is no coercion, fraud, undue influence or pressure by either party and the compromise has been reached voluntarily and constitute to the full and final settlement of the trivial altercations at the pub.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:53599 CRL.P No. 16838 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

6. Petitioner and respondent No.2 / defacto

¶40

complainant are present before the Court. They are identified by their respective counsel. Respondent No.2 submits that FIR was registered on a trivial issue and now the dispute has been settled and therefore, he has no objection to quash the proceedings.

¶41

The Hon'ble Apex Court in NARIDER SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held 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: i) secure ends of justice, or ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

¶42

Though the offences alleged are noncompoundable, in view of the settlement, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53599 CRL.P No. 16838 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

In the above facts and circumstances, it is

¶46

expedient to quash the proceedings, in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the following:-

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i) Petition is allowed .

¶49

ii) FIR in Crime No.288/2025 of Jeevan

¶50

Bheemanagar Police Station, Bengaluru city, registered for the offence Punishable under Section 126(2), 115(2), 309(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and the consequent proceedings are quashed.

¶51

Pending IAs, if any, are disposed of.

¶52

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶53

LDC

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 98

Satish M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish M v. 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 Suraj Singh Vs State of Karnataka

Dilip @ Dilip Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Vasvi K K Vs State by Panchanahalli P S

Sri Raghavendra K M @ Raghu Vs the State of Karnataka

Swappan Barman Vs State of Karnataka

Nizamuddin @ Nizam Vs State of Karnataka