Sri Youraj Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD) U/SEC 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO, QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF CRIME NO. 4/2024 REGISTERED BY THE HULSOOR POLICE STATION DIST BIDAR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 376(2)(n) OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR SITTING AT BASAVAKALYAN IN S.C CASE NO. 5029/2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶28

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 15.04.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5137 CRL.P No. 200579 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶33

CAV ORDER

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

¶35

The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashing of FIR in Cr.No.4/2024, registered by the Hulsoor police station for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC pending on the file of learned II Addl. District and Session Judge, Bidar in S.C.No.5029/2024.

¶36

The brief facts of the case :

¶37

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant viz., Muskan Banu D/o Md. Akbar Pathan lodged the complaint against the petitioner stating that when she was going her land by walk through the land of the petitioner, he took the victim forcibly by closing her mouth and committing rape on her. He repeatedly committed rape on her while she was going to her land, as a result, she was four months pregnant and she could not tell the same to her parents or anyone due to fear. When the said pregnancy has been disclosed to the family members of the victim, they rushed to the police station and lodged the complaint against the petitioner. Based on the complaint, the

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5137 CRL.P No. 200579 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

respondent - police registered a case in Cr.No.4/2024 against the petitioner. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC.

¶41

Heard learned counsel Sri. Ganesh Naik for the petitioner and Sri. Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State and Sri. Shivasharana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶42

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the victim married each other and living together happily and also leading family life as husband and wife. The victim did not wish to continue the case against the petitioner, since they have compromised the matter and living together happily. Under such circumstances, the proceedings against the petitioner certainly would be abuse of process of law.

¶43

It is further submitted that in a case, where the petitioner and the victim compromised the matter in order to maintain quietus among themselves, this Court may invoke inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. Even though it is

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5137 CRL.P No. 200579 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

a non compoundable and cognizable offence and moreover, it is not permissible under the law to compound such offences. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶47

Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently submitted that in a case where the offence committed against the women and children have to be looked into very seriously. Under such circumstances, it would not be possible or appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Even though, they compromised the matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again issued guidelines in respect of the method and manner in which, such cases are required to be dealt with. Therefore, the petitioner has to face the trial. Hence, the petition has to be rejected. Making such submissions, the learned HCGP for the respondent - State prays to allow the petition.

¶48

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, it is relevant to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 14 SCC (531) held that even in case, invoking non

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5137 CRL.P No. 200579 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

compoundable offence, power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., are not restricted by the provisions deals under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. which means Hon'ble Supreme Court can exercise inherent power independently notwithstanding limitation under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.

¶52

Having considered the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, learned counsel for the respective parties have filed an application for compounding the offences. The reasons assigned in the said affidavit in paragraph Nos. 3 to 6 read as under:

¶53

“3. I state that, I and petitioner have compromised and settled the above matter out of the court and also I/victim married to the petitioner, both are leaving happily and leading family life as a husband and wife, thus the complainant/victim do not wish to continue with the above case as against the petitioner in the above case.

¶54

4. I state that, the petitioner and complainant/victim have compromised and settled the above case out of court and they have got no claim as against each other and also both the parties shall have no right to institute any proceedings/case before the court of law as against each other.

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5137 CRL.P No. 200579 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

5. I state that, due to amicable settlement of entire dispute between the family members at the intervention of elders and well-wishers of both the families, I being the complainant seeks to withdraw all the allegations made in complaint against the petitioner by permitting to compounding the offence.

¶58

6. I state that in the case involving offences is required to take into the consideration the gravity of offences and also nature of the offences if the alleged offences are purely private in nature and if it is between the close family members and if a settlement is arrived between the parties who are the close family members now intend to give end to all dispute the offences can be compounded with the permission of this Hon'ble Court.”

¶59

Having considered the averments of the said

¶60

affidavit stated supra, it is appropriate to extend the benefit of compromise between the parties in order to maintain quietus in their marital life. Hence, the criminal petition is required to be disposed of accordingly.

¶61

In the light of the aforesaid observations, I proceed to pass the following:

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5137 CRL.P No. 200579 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶66

ii) The proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.4/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC registered by the Hulsoor police station, Bidar District pending on the file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar sitting at Basavakalyan in S.C. No. 5029/2024, is hereby quashed.

¶67

In view of disposal of the main petition, interim application, if any, stands disposed off.

¶68

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶69

RSP/JS

¶70

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3

Sri Youraj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Youraj 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. Revanth S Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr M Shivappa Vs Mr Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin

Mr. Channappar @ Rajaiah Alias Angadi Raja Vs State of Karnataka by

Dinesh N M @ Dinesh Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Vinay Prashanth Alias Vinay Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Gouda Moinuddin @ Syed Gouse Moinuddin Vs the State of Karnataka