Mr. Afsar Khan @ Affi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2025CRL.P/3125/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Afsar Khan @ Affi v. State of Karnataka (Jayanagar PS) & Padmanabha N; CRL.P No. 3125 of 2025; Hemant Chandangoudar J; decided 02-04-2025; quashing of FIR Crime No.226/2024 dated 27.06.2024; offences under Sections 427, 506, 341, 504, 143, 147, 149, 380, 448, 324 IPC; petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS; memorandum of compromise; compounding of non-compoundable cognizable offences; amicable settlement between parties; complainant no objection; continuation of investigation an abuse of legal process; FIR quashed qua petitioner; investigation against other accused to continue.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.226/2024 registered by Jayanagar Police Station quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner; Investigating Officer to proceed with investigation against other accused in accordance with law. ¶¶34

Mr. Afsar Khan @ Affi Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.226/2024 registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 427, 506, 341, 504, 143, 147, 149, 380, 448 and 324 of IPC ought to be quashed in view of the amicable settlement (compromise for compounding) arrived at between the parties.

¶¶24

Court's answer

Although the offences alleged against the petitioner are cognizable and non-compoundable, considering the amicable resolution between the parties, subjecting the petitioner to investigation would serve no purpose.

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

Continuing investigation against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the legal process, the likelihood of police filing a charge sheet being remote in light of the settlement.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and the impugned FIR in Crime No.226/2024 registered by the Jayanagar Police Station is quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner.ratio¶¶34
The Investigating Officer is directed to proceed with the investigation against the other accused in accordance with law.ratio¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS by the person arrayed as accused in FIR Crime No.226/2024 dated 27.06.2024 of Jayanagar Police Station (offences punishable under Sections 427, 506, 341, 504, 143, 147, 149, 380, 448 and 324 IPC), seeking quashing of the FIR and the complaint pending before the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru. At the reporting-settlement stage both parties appeared and filed a memorandum of compromise petition for compounding; the second respondent/complainant stated that the petitioner had been inadvertently named in the FIR as he was not present at the spot on the date of the incident and raised no objection to quashing. Holding that, although the offences alleged were cognizable and non-compoundable, in view of the amicable resolution subjecting the petitioner to investigation would serve no purpose and continuing it would amount to an abuse of the legal process, Hemant Chandangoudar J allowed the petition, quashed the FIR insofar as it related to the petitioner, and directed the Investigating Officer to proceed against the other accused in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:13908 CRL.P No. 3125 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3125 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /

¶6

528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. AFSAR KHAN @ AFFI S/O LATE RIYAZULLA KHAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.559, PIPELINE ROAD ILYAS NAGAR, J.P. NAGAR POST J.P. NAGAR

¶9

BENGALURU-560 078.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJU P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION JAYANAGAR SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU-560 070 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

PADMANABHA N S/O LATE NARAYANA D AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.106 1^ST FLOOR, HOUSE NO.69 7^TH MAIN, 39^TH A CROSS 5^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. B.N. SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13908 CRL.P No. 3125 of 2025

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.0226/2024 DATED 27/06/2024 REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 427, 506, 341, 504, 143, 147, 149, 380, 448 AND 324 OF IPC ANNEXURE-A AND COMPLAINT DATED 27.06.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-B PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Sri B.N. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel files vakalath for respondent No.2., and the same is placed on record.

¶24

The petitioner challenges the registration of the crime for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 506, 341, 504, 143, 147, 149, 380, 448 and 324 of IPC.

¶25

The 2^nd respondent lodged the FIR alleging that the petitioner criminally trespassed into the subject property, abused with vulgar language and threatened with dire consequences and also assaulted him.

¶26

Both the parties are present before this Court and have filed memorandum of compromise petition for compounding stating that they have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves and in terms of the settlement, the 2^nd respondent who is present before this Court has stated that inadvertently, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the first information report (FIR), although he was not present at the spot as on the date of the incident. He further states that he has no objection for quashing the impugned FIR.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13908 CRL.P No. 3125 of 2025

¶28

The memorandum of compromise petition is placed

¶29

on record.

¶30

Although the offences alleged against the petitioner are cognizable and non-compoundable, considering the amicable resolution between the parties, subjecting the petitioner to investigation would serve no purpose. The likelihood of Police filing the charge sheet is remote in light of the settlement. Therefore, continuing investigation against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

¶31