Allowed¶68

Rajshekhar and Ors. v. the State through and Anr.

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2025CRL.P/200102/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of cross-complaints under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on amicable settlement; voluntary withdrawal of complaints verified on enquiry; offences simple, private, no serious societal impact; Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 14 SCC 531 followed; C.C.No.1867/2024 (Crime No. 137/2024, Ss. 323, 448, 504, 506 r/w 149 IPC) and C.C.No.20/2025 (Crime No. 143/2024, Ss. 448, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC), II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar, quashed; High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench; V Srishananda J.; petitions allowed.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal petitions allowed; pending criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1867/2024 and C.C.No.20/2025 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Bidar, quashed. ¶68

Rajshekhar and Ors. Vs the State through and Anr. — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both criminal petitions allowed; pending criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1867/2024 and C.C.No.20/2025 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Bidar, quashed.

¶68

Issue for consideration

Whether the complaints and further proceedings in C.C.No.1867/2024 and C.C.No.20/2025 ought to be quashed in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in view of the parties' agreement to withdraw their respective complaints against each other.

¶64

Court's answer

After deliberations, the parties agreed that both matters could be disposed of and that they would withdraw their respective complaints against each other.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

On enquiry, the Court was satisfied that the decision to withdraw the complaints against each other was voluntary and without any undue influence or coercion.

¶58

Key takeaways

The offences alleged against each other were simple in nature, privy to the parties, and had no serious impact on society at large.ratio¶62
Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, and exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., both the complaints and further proceedings thereof were held to need quashing.ratio¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (consolidated hearing of CRL.P No. 200102 of 2025 and CRL.P No. 200299 of 2025) against cross-cases C.C.No.1867/2024 (out of Crime No. 137/2024, New Town Police Station, Bidar; offences under Sections 323, 448, 504 & 506 r/w 149 IPC; cognizance dated 13.11.2024) and C.C.No.20/2025 (out of Crime No. 143/2024; offences under Sections 448, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC), both pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar. When the petitions came up for admission, the parties to both cross-cases agreed to withdraw their respective complaints; the Court enquired and recorded satisfaction that the settlement was voluntary and free from undue influence or coercion, observed that the offences were simple, privy to the parties and without serious impact on society, and following the dictum in Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, exercised its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash both complaints and all further proceedings.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3686 CRL.P No. 200102 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200299 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200102 OF 2025

¶9

C/W

¶10

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200299 OF 2025

¶11

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200102 OF 2025

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

RAJSHEKHAR S/O ADIVEPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: RETD. PERSON, R/O: J. P. NAGAR, BIDAR – 585401.

¶14

SHAKUNTALA W/O PRATAP TAMBAKE AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE R/O: J. P. NAGAR,

¶15

Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

BIDAR – 585401.

¶17

PRATAP TAMBAKE S/O ADIVEPPA TAMBAKE AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: RETD. PERSON, R/O: J. P. NAGAR, BIDAR – 585401.

¶18

PRASHANTH TAMBAKE S/O NIRANJAPPA TAMBAKE AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE R/O: J. P. NAGAR, BIDAR – 585401.

¶19

CHANNU TAMBAKE @ CHANNABASAVA TAMBAKE S/O RAJSHEKHAR TAMBAKE AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3686 CRL.P No. 200102 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200299 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

OCC: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, R/O: J. P. NAGAR, BIDAR – 585401.

¶23

SMT. JYOTI TAMBAKE W/O PRASHANT TAMBAKE AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O: J. P. NAGAR, BIDAR – 585401.

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI. RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE STATE THROUGH NEW TOWN POLICE STATION, BIDAR – 585401. R/BY ADDL. SPP HIGH Court OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI – 585 107.

¶28

TUKARAM S/O BANDEPPA HANGARAGI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: RETD. GOVT SERVANT, R/O: J. P. NAGAR, BIDAR – 585401.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. JAMADER SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR ADV. FOR R2)

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO. 1867/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BIDAR PENDING BEFORE NEW TOWN P.S FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 448, 504 & 506 R/W 149 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE BASED ON THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE DATED 13.11.2024 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 137/2024 AS ILLEGAL AND ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3686 CRL.P No. 200102 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200299 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200299 OF 2025

¶35

BETWEEN:

¶36

TUKARAM HANGARAGI S/O BANDEPPA, AGE:64 YEARS,

¶37

OCC: RETIRED GOVT. SERVANT,

¶38

SHOBHA HANGARAGI W/O TUKARAM HANGARAGI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶39

GUDDI SAHANA HANGARAGI D/O TUKARAM HANGARAGI, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT (M.TECH),

¶40

SUMIT HANGARAGI S/O TUKARAM HANGARAGI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, ALL RE: JP NAGAR COLONY, BIDAR TQ & DIST: BIDAR – 585 401.

¶41

…PETITIONERS

¶42

(BY SRI. AVINASH A. UPLOANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶43

AND:

¶44

THE STATE THROUGH NEW TOWN POLICE STATION, BIDAR – 585401. R/BY ADDL. SPP HIGH Court OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI – 585 107.

¶45

PRATAP S/O ADVEPPA AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED PERSON, R/O: JP NAGAR COLONY, BIDAR, TQ & DIST: BIDAR – 585 401.

¶46

…RESPONDENTS

¶47

(BY SRI. JAMADER SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI RAVI B. PATIL ADV. FOR R2)

¶48

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3686 CRL.P No. 200102 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200299 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO EXERCISE INHERENT POWERS UNDER SECTION.482 CR.P.C,(258 OF BNSS), EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.20/2025 (CRIME.NO.143/2024 OF NEW TOWN POLICE STATION BIDAR, DIST:BIDAR), FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 448, 323, 504, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC, IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C COURT AT BIDAR, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶51

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶52

ORAL ORDER

¶53

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

¶54

Parties are present.

¶55

After some amount of deliberations, parties

¶56

agreed that, both the matters can be disposed of, they are interested to withdraw their respective complaints.

¶57

On enquiry, the Court is satisfied that, the

¶58

decision to withdraw the complaints against each other by the parties is voluntary, without any undue influence or coercion.

¶59

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3686 CRL.P No. 200102 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200299 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Since the offence alleged against each other are

¶62

simple in nature and privy to the parties and has no serious impact on the society at large.

¶63

Following the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the

¶64

case of Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2022) 14 SCC 531, by exercising the inherent power vested in this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., both the complaints and further proceedings thereof, needs to be quashed. Hence, the following order:

¶65

ORDER

¶66