Allowed¶45

Mr. T. D. Nagaraj v. Sumesh Kumar

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2025CRL.P/2591/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 CrPC despite cognizable and non-compoundable IPC offences (ss.193, 201, 211, 212, 219, 220, 323, 342, 348, 500, 504, 506, 120B r/w 149 IPC) on basis of joint compounding application under S.302 r/w S.482 CrPC and amicable settlement; complainant-lawyer versus police-officer accused; private complaint under S.200 CrPC referred under S.156(3); probability of conviction remote and bleak; abuse of process of law; CC 723/2016, JMFC-III Mangalore; CRL.P No. 2591 of 2025; Hemant Chandangoudar J.; 12 March 2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; entire proceedings in CC No. 723 of 2016 on the file of JMFC-III Court, Mangalore, quashed insofar as they relate to the accused/petitioners. ¶45

Mr. T. D. Nagaraj Vs Sumesh Kumar — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Petition allowed; entire proceedings in CC No. 723 of 2016 on the file of JMFC-III Court, Mangalore, quashed insofar as they relate to the accused/petitioners.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in CC No. 723 of 2016 against the petitioners, although for cognizable and non-compoundable offences, ought to be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties and their joint application for compounding of the offences.

¶40

Court's answer

Although the offences alleged against the petitioners/accused are cognizable and non-compoundable, the parties having amicably settled the dispute among themselves, subjecting the petitioners to trial would be a futile exercise since the probability of conviction of the petitioners/accused is remote and bleak in view of the settlement.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the accused/petitioners will be an abuse of the process of law; accordingly the Criminal Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.723/2016 on the file of the JMFC-III Court, Mangalore, are quashed insofar as they relate to the accused/petitioners.

¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRL.P No. 2591 of 2025 (High Court of Karnataka, Hemant Chandangoudar J., 12.03.2025) — Petition under S. 482 Cr.PC (filed under S. 528 BNSS) to quash entire proceedings in CC No. 723 of 2016, JMFC (III Court), Mangalore, arising out of PCR No. 27 of 2010 — Private complaint under S. 200 Cr.P.C. by respondent, a practising lawyer, alleging that on 02.02.2010 he was forcibly taken by police officers from Ullal Police Station while attending a court proceeding, detained, threatened and physically assaulted (including by Sub-Inspector T.D. Nagaraj and Inspector Lingappa Poojari) to pressurise him to falsely confess to a stone-pelting incident at a mosque, illegally confined, falsely implicated, and his arrest publicized in the media to damage his reputation — Offences alleged under Sections 193, 201, 211, 212, 219, 220, 323, 342, 348, 500, 504, 506, 120(B) r/w Section 149 IPC — Complaint referred to police under S. 156(3) Cr.PC; petitioners facing trial — Parties appeared and filed application under S. 302 r/w S. 482 Cr.PC for compounding, stating amicable settlement on intervention of well wishers; respondent agreed to withdraw all allegations and raised no objection to quashing — Held: though offences are cognizable and non-compoundable, settlement renders probability of conviction remote and bleak, trial would be a futile exercise and continuance of proceedings an abuse of the process of law — Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings quashed qua petitioners.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:10513 CRL.P No. 2591 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2591 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. T.D. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O T.C. DHARMAPPA, RESIDING AT SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, THUPPURU, SHIVAMOGGA, KARNATAKA-577 423.

¶9

MR. LINGAPPA POOJARY @ LINGAPPA BILLAVARA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O MR. B.T. RAMANNA, RESIDING AT SHRI MANJUNATH KRIPA, MADIKERI ROAD, OPP. PETROL BUNK, KANTHUR, MURNAD, KODAGU, KARNATAKA-571 252.

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MR. GIRISH S AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O MR. SHIVAPPA SANNER, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.3, 3^RD FLOOR, 1^ST MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK, 3^RD PHASE, NEAR APEX BANK, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560 079.

¶12

MR. GANGADHAR. N AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O MR. SANJEEVA POOJARY, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 6-13/A, SUGANDHA, NEKKILAR HOUSE, BANTWALA TALUKU, VITTAL KASABA VILLAGE, VITTAL,

¶13

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:10513 CRL.P No. 2591 of 2025

¶15

DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA-574 243.

¶16

MR. A.E. IQBAL AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, C/O MR. IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.1-152, GADI CHOWKA, NEAR ABOOBAKKAR SHOP, KOTEPURA D ROAD, KOTEPURA, ULLAL, MANGALORE, KARNATAKA-575 020.

¶17

MR. VIJAY PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, C/O M.K. MOHAN DAS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.3-54/3A, MADAKA HOUSE, MUNNUR, KUTHAR, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 017.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. HARSHA G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

SUMESH KUMAR

¶22

S/O. K.R. RAJAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, ADVOCATE, OFFICE MAHENDRA ARCADE, K.R. RAO ROAD, KARANGLAPADI, MANGALORE D.K-575 003.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI. ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY K., HCGP)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.723 OF 2016 ARISING OUT OF PCR. NO.27 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF JMFC (III COURT) MANGALORE, PURSUANT TO THE COMPLAINT FILED BY RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 193, 201, 211, 212, 219, 220,

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:10513 CRL.P No. 2591 of 2025

¶28

323, 342, 348, 500, 504, 506, 120(B) READ SECTION 149 OF IPC AS PER DOCUMENT NO.1.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioners who are facing Trial for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 201, 211, 212, 219, 220, 323, 342, 348, 500, 504, 506 and 120B r/w Section 149 of IPC are before this Court seeking relief.

¶33

The respondent/Complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that, he is a practicing lawyer, and, on February 2, 2010, he was forcibly taken by police officers from the Ullal Police Station while attending a court proceeding. He was allegedly detained, threatened, and physically assaulted by police officers, including Sub-Inspector T.D. Nagaraj and Inspector Lingappa Poojari, who pressurised him to falsely confess involvement in a stone-pelting incident at a mosque. Despite denying any connection to the case, the complainant claims he was illegally confined, mistreated, and later falsely implicated in the case. He also states that his arrest and photograph were deliberately publicized in the media to damage his professional and personal reputation.

¶34

The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. The Police registered the FIR for the aforesaid offences, and the

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:10513 CRL.P No. 2591 of 2025

¶37

case has been registered in CC No. 723 of 2016 on the file of JMFC (III Court) Mangalore.

¶38

The Parties are present before this Court and they have filed application under Section 302 read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for compounding of the offences stating that with an intervention of well wishers and friends, they have amicably settled the dispute between them, and in terms of the settlement, the respondent has agreed to withdraw all the allegation, and has no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings.

¶39

The application is placed on record.

¶40

Though the offences alleged against the petitioners/accused are cognizable and non-compoundable, however, having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves, it would be a futile exercise, if the petitioners are subjected to trial, since the probability of conviction of the petitioners/accused are remote and bleak in view of the settlement. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the accused/petitioners will be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) Criminal Petition is allowed;

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:10513 CRL.P No. 2591 of 2025

¶45

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.723/2016, on the file of the JMFC-III Court, Mangalore, insofar it relates to the accused/petitioners herein is hereby quashed.

¶46

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶47

Mr. T. D. Nagaraj v. Sumesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. T. D. Nagaraj v. Sumesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Hanumesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shantharaju G N., Vs the State by

Majhar Anwar Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M Allauddeen Vs the State of Karnataka

Deepika Vs State of Karnataka

Sher Singh @ Shobia Vs State of Karnataka