Allowed¶67

Ganesh Raikar v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2025CRL.P/63/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings on amicable settlement; S.482 CrPC / S.528 BNSS inherent power; FIR Crime No.120/2024, Bandepalya Police Station, Bengaluru; offences u/ss 323, 354, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC (order body: r/w 511 IPC); landlord-tenant dispute; joint memo; withdrawal of complaint by defacto complainant Neelavani; Rs.85,000 settlement payment; Rs.5,500 monthly rent; O.S.No.7154/2023 injunction suit; eviction suit SC 433/2025 Small Cause Court; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 relied on; C.C.No.24287/2024 IX Additional CMM Court Bengaluru quashed; petition allowed; High Court of Karnataka; Mohammad Nawaz, J.; NC: 2025:KHC:54105.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the entire proceedings in C.C.No.24287/2024 on the file of the Court of IX Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru, pending against the petitioners, quashed. ¶67

Ganesh Raikar Vs the State of Karnataka by — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; the entire proceedings in C.C.No.24287/2024 on the file of the Court of IX Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru, pending against the petitioners, quashed.

¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 28.06.2024 in Crime No.120/2024 and the proceedings in C.C.No.24287/2024 (IX Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru) for offences under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 r/w. 34 IPC against the petitioners should be quashed, the parties having amicably settled their private landlord-tenant dispute.

¶23

Court's answer

Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute, no purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings pending against the petitioners; therefore the proceedings can be quashed in the interest of justice.

¶61

Ratio / Principle

The court recorded that the parties were present, and respondent No.2 / defacto complainant submitted that, in terms of the joint memo, she had no objection to the proceedings being quashed.

¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 63 of 2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:54105), High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, 17.12.2025 (Mohammad Nawaz, J.). Tenants Ganesh Raikar and Ayesha Ganesh Raikar sought quashing, under S.482 CrPC (filed also as S.528 BNSS), of charge sheet No.120/2024 dated 28.06.2024 and proceedings in C.C.No.24287/2024 (IX Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru) arising from FIR Crime No.120/2024 of Bandepalya Police Station for offences under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 r/w. 34 IPC (body of the order records the sections as read with Section 511 IPC), in a private landlord-tenant dispute with respondent No.2 Neelavani, who was also pursuing eviction suit SC 433/2025 while the petitioners had filed injunction suit O.S.No.7154/2023. A joint memo recorded full settlement: respondent to pay Rs.85,000/- and withdraw the complaint; petitioners to vacate the premises by 27.01.2026. Relying on Narinder Singh, (2014) 6 SCC 466 (guiding factors: securing ends of justice / preventing abuse of process; predominantly civil disputes should be quashed on full settlement), the court held that after amicable settlement no purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings, and quashed the entire proceedings in C.C.No.24287/2024. Petition allowed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:54105 CRL.P No. 63 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 63 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GANESH RAIKAR, S/O HANUMANTH, 38 YRS, AYESHA GANESH RAIKAR W/O. GANESH RAIKAR (34 YRS) HOUSE NO-45, 1^ST FLOOR, KUDLUE ROAD, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560 068

¶9

ALSO IN PERMANENT ADDRESS AT: CHIKKA BIDDAPPA LAYOUT,

¶10

1^ST CROSS, WARD NO.190, GARVABHAVI PALYA, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGLAURU-560078.

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SMT. ASMA PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BY BANDEPALYA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001

¶16

NEELAVANI W/O. PRAKASH 37 YRS NO. 56, 5^TH CROSS, KRISHNAPPA COMPOUND, MANGAMMANAPALYA, BOMMANAHALLI,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:54105 CRL.P No. 63 of 2025

HC-KAR

BANGALORE-560068

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET VIDE NO.120/2024 DATED 28.06.2024 AND ALSO PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.24287/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE IX-ADDL. CMM COURT AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 354, 504, 506 R/W. 34 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This petition arise out of FIR registered in Crime

¶28

No.120/2024 at Bandepalya Police Station, Bengaluru City,

¶29

for the offence Punishable under Section 323, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 511 of IPC.

¶30

Charge sheet is filed against the petitioners.

¶31

The case is pending in C.C.No.24287/2024 on the file of the learned IX Additional CJM Court at Bengaluru.

¶32

Petitioners are seeking to quash the charge

¶33

sheet and proceedings initiated against them.

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:54105 CRL.P No. 63 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Petitioners are said to be the tenants of respondent No.2 / defacto complainant. In respect of an incident allegedly took place on 20.04.2024, at about 08:35 – 08:55 p.m., the complaint came to be lodged. From the averments in the complaint, it can be gathered that the dispute is private in nature. Parties are willing to settle the dispute. A joint memo is filed reporting settlement, signed by the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 / defacto complainant.

¶37

Joint memo is placed on record. Contents of

¶38

the joint memo are extracted hereunder:-

¶39

" 1. The petitioner has filed the above petition for quashing the charge sheet vide No. 120/2024 dated 28.06.2024 and also proceedings in CC no.24287/2024 on the file of the IX-ADDL. CMM court at Bengaluru for the offence p/u/s 323, 354, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC against the petitioners.

¶40

2. The respondent submit that petitioner are the tenants under the respondent since 2022 and paying a rent of Rs.5500 per month.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:54105 CRL.P No. 63 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

3. The respondent further submit that petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.7154/2023 for an Injunction not to dispose them with out due process of law.

¶45

4. The respondent herein being the landlord has filed an eviction suit pending before the Small Cause Court in SC 433/2025 which is pending for evidence of the petitioner.

¶46

5. The respondent further submit that after the intervention of the counsels of both the parties have agreed to put an end to this litigation.

¶47

6. The respondent herein is ready to pay an amount of Rs. 85.000 to the petitioners and the petitioner shall vacate the premises of the respondent on the day of the receipt of the DD amount of Rs.85.000 drawn on City Union Bank limited HSR layout branch

¶48

7. The Petitioner has under taken to vacate the premises on or before from the 27th of January 2026 by receiving Rs. 85,000/-respondent.

¶49

8. The respondent under takes to with draw the complaint and she does not intend to peruse the criminal case in CC No..24287/2024 on the file of the IX-ADDL. CMM court at Bengaluru for the offence

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:54105 CRL.P No. 63 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

p/u/s 323, 354, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC against the petitioners.

¶54

9. The respondent reserved with the kind indulgence of this Hon'ble court to restore the CC no.24287/2024 on the file of the IX-ADDL. CMM court at Bengaluru for the offence p/u/s 323, 354, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC against the petitioners if the petitioner acting detrimental by not vacating the rental premises.

¶55

10. The respondent shall undertake to pay Rs.85,000/- as agreed above on the receipt of vacant premises which shall be deposited before the Hon'ble City Civil court in O.S No.7154/2023. The petitioner shall handover the vacant premises and handover the house key before the trial court and the same may be recorded by the trial court and close the matter pending between them."

¶56

Parties are present before the Court. Respondent No.2 / defacto complainant submits that in terms of the joint memo, she has no objection to quash the proceedings.

¶57

The Hon'ble Apex Court in NARINDER SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:54105 CRL.P No. 63 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

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. Those criminal cases having overwhelming and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transaction or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family dispute should be quashed when parties have resolved their entire dispute among themselves.

¶61

Since, the parties have amicably settled the dispute, no purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings pending against he petitioners. Therefore, the proceedings can be quashed, in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the following:-

¶62

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:54105 CRL.P No. 63 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i) Petition is allowed .

¶67

ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.24287/2024 on the file of the Court of IX Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru, pending against the petitioners are quashed.

¶68

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶69

LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 102

Ganesh Raikar v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Raikar v. the State of Karnataka by

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 Vijaykumar @ Srinivas Vijaykumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C D Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Veena Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Parashurama Hanuma Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Kaueer Rafiq Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Yash Shetty @ Chowkidar Yash Shetty Vs State of Karnataka