Sri R Balakrishna v. State by Bethamangala Police

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2025CRL.P/6826/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.P No. 6826 of 2022 (HC-KAR, M.I. Arun J., 07-11-2025): quashing of FIR Crime No.103/2022 under Section 376 IPC on joint compromise application under S.482 read with S.320 CrPC; counter-complaint context arising about eleven months after petitioner's theft complaint against his domestic helper (C.C.No.1035/2021); application of Madhukar and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Another, (2025) 7 SCR 568; non-compoundable heinous offence; Bethamangala Police, Kolar District (K.G.F); settlement between parties; parties moved on with their lives.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.103/2022, pending before the Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kolar District, K.G.F, quashed. ¶¶96 (judg. para 10 / ORDER)

Sri R Balakrishna Vs State by Bethamangala Police — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.103/2022, pending before the Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kolar District, K.G.F, quashed.

¶¶96 (judg. para 10 / ORDER)

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.103/2022 registered under Section 376 IPC against the petitioner can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of the compromise between the parties, notwithstanding that the offence is non-compoundable and heinous.

¶¶23 (cause title)

Court's answer

This court records that an offence under Section 376 of the IPC is not compoundable and is a heinous crime, before turning to the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Madhukar.

¶¶45 (judg. para 7)

Ratio / Principle

Finding: respondent No.2 worked as a domestic helper in the petitioner's house; the petitioner had accused her of theft and lodged a police complaint; after a lapse of eleven months she filed the present complaint alleging rape, which may be a counter complaint filed to escape the clutches of the law; nevertheless, both parties resolved their dispute amicably and decided not to support the prosecution in each other's complaint and counter-complaint, choosing to move on with their lives.

¶¶88 (judg. para 8)

Key takeaways

Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhukar and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others, and under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this court holds it a fit case for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner; accordingly the proceedings in Crime No.103/2022 pending before the Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kolar District, K.G.F stand quashed.ratio¶¶89 (judg. para 9)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 CrPC — quashing of FIR in Crime No.103/2022 (Bethamangala Police) registered under S.376 IPC against the petitioner. Complainant was the petitioner's domestic helper; the petitioner had earlier complained against her of theft of gold ornaments (C.C.No.1035/2021, complaint dated 02.08.2021), and about eleven months later (06.07.2022) she lodged the rape complaint. Parties compromised, filed a joint application under S.482 read with S.320 CrPC, and undertook not to pursue the respective complaint and counter-complaint. Court noted that an offence under S.376 IPC is non-compoundable and heinous, but applying the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhukar and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Another, (2025) 7 SCR 568, and considering the peculiar facts — sequence of the complaints, possible counter-complaint, amicable resolution, categorical mutual withdrawal, and no objection by the learned HCGP — held the case fit for quashing. Proceedings in Crime No.103/2022 pending before the Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM Court, Kolar District, K.G.F, quashed. Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.I.Arun; decided 07.11.2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45299 CRL.P No. 6826 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6826 OF 2022

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI R BALAKRISHNA S/O RAMANANDAM M AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS CHC 49, ROBERTSONPET POLICE STATION RESIDING AT NO.01 NEW POLICE QUARTERS BETHAMANGALA KGF TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶11

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI.SHRIDHARA K.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

STATE BY BETHAMANGALA POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

SMT. RADHAMMA W/O. ANAND KUMAR

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45299 CRL.P No. 6826 of 2022

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, HONAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, MULBAGILU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM., HCGP FOR R1;

¶22

SRI.L.R.LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R2;)

¶23

THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.0103/2022 REGISTERED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BETHAMANGALA POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.376 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Dn.) AND C.J.M., COURT KOLAR DIST KGF AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HAERING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:45299 CRL.P No. 6826 of 2022

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The criminal petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶31

"(a) Quash the FIR in Crime No.0103/2022, registered by the 1^st Respondent Bethamangala Police for the offences punishable U/s. 376 of IPC against the Petitioner herein, which is pending on the file of the Addl.C.J.M(Sr.Dn.) & C.J.M Court, Kolar Dist KGF.

¶32

(b) Pass any other suitable order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the circumstances, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶33

The complainant was working in the house of the accused/petitioner as a domestic helper. On 02.08.2021, the accused/petitioner lodged a complaint against the complainant alleging that she had committed theft of certain gold ornaments in his house, which resulted in registration of C.C.No.1035/2021.

¶34

Thereafter, on 06.07.2022, the complainant

¶35

lodged a complaint against the petitioner herein, alleging

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45299 CRL.P No. 6826 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

that the sexual assault on her being done several times by him. The complainant has been accused of committing an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and Crime No.103/2022 has been registered by respondent No.1-Police.

¶39

Both the petitioner and the complainant have entered into a compromise and they have filed a joint application under Section 482 read with Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C'), wherein the complainant has stated that she is not interested in pursuing the case against the petitioner herein and that the proceedings against him registered in Crime No.103/2022 may be quashed. Similarly, the petitioner has undertaken not to pursue C.C.No.1035/2021 against respondent No.2 herein.

¶40

The parties are present before this Court and they are duly identified by their respective learned counsel.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45299 CRL.P No. 6826 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The learned High Court Government Pleader

¶44

has no objection to the quashing of proceedings against the petitioner herein.

¶45

An offence under Section 376 of the IPC is not compoundable and is a heinous crime. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhukar and Others Vs. The

¶46

State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2025)

¶47

7 SCR 568 has held as under:

¶48

"2. The present appeals arise from a common order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench in Criminal Application Nos.2561 and 2185 of 2024, whereby the High Court dismissed the petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[1] seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants herein.

¶49

(1) CrPC

¶50

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows:

¶51

3.1. FIR bearing Crime No. 302 of 2023 dated 20.11.2023 ('1st FIR') was registered at Mehunbare Police Station, District Jalgaon under Sections 324,

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:45299 CRL.P No. 6826 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

141, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[2] against the appellants in SLP(Crl) No.7212 of 2025.

¶56

[2] IPC

¶57

3.2. A second FIR bearing Crime No. 304 of 2023 dated 21.11.2023 ('2nd FIR') was registered at the same police station under Sections 376, 354- A, 354D, 509, and 506 IPC against the appellant in SLP(Crl) No.7495 of 2025, giving rise to Sessions Case No. 29 of 2024.

¶58

3.3. The 1st FIR alleged that on 19.11.2023, the appellants formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the complainant and her family members, including her father Prabhakar (appellant in SLP(Crl) No.7495 of 2025), allegedly due to his role in causing the divorce of one of the appellants.

¶59

3.4. The 2nd FIR, filed the following day, contained grave allegations against Prabhakar, including sexual assault and criminal intimidation. It was alleged that he had sexually exploited the complainant over the time, recorded videos of the act, and interfered with her subsequent matrimonial alliances.

¶60

3.5. However, in March 2024, the complainant in the 2nd FIR filed an affidavit before the High Court expressing her desire not to pursue the prosecution

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:45299 CRL.P No. 6826 of 2022

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

and stating that she had no objection to grant of bail to the accused. She further affirmed that the matter had been amicably resolved, and she had received Rs. 5,00,000/- towards marriage-related expenses.

¶65

3.6. Based on the above, the appellants moved Criminal Applications Nos. 2561 and 2185 of 2024 before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of both FIRs. By a common order dated 07.03.2025, the High Court rejected both applications, holding that an offence under Section 376 IPC being of a serious and non-compoundable nature, could not be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement or monetary compensation. The Court concluded that the compromise could not form the basis for quashing proceedings in such cases.

¶66

3.7. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have approached this Court.

¶67

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶68

5. It is brought to our attention that both parties have categorically taken the stand before this Court that they have resolved their disputes amicably and are desirous of moving on with their lives. The complainant in the 2nd FIR, now married and residing with her husband, has expressed that continuation of the prosecution would cause further disruption in her personal life and that she has no

¶69

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:45299 CRL.P No. 6826 of 2022

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

wish to support the charges or pursue the matter any further.

¶73

6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.

¶74

7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the

¶75

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:45299 CRL.P No. 6826 of 2022

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.

¶79

8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and taking into account the categorical stand taken by the complainant and the nature of the settlement, we are of the opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only amount to abuse of process.

¶80

9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order of the High Court dated 07.03.2025 is set aside. FIR No. 302 of 2023 and FIR No. 304 of 2023, along with all proceedings arising therefrom, including Sessions Case No. 29 of 2024, stand quashed.

¶81

10. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of."

¶82

In the instant case, respondent No.2 was

¶83

working as a domestic helper in the petitioner's house. The

¶84

10 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:45299 CRL.P No. 6826 of 2022

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

petitioner has accused her of committing theft in his house

¶88

and has lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police. After a lapse of eleven months, the present complaint is filed by respondent No.2 alleging rape against the petitioner on several occasions. It may be a case of a counter complaint filed only to escape from the clutches of the law. Nevertheless, both the petitioner and respondent No.2 have resolved their dispute amicably and have decided not to support the case of the prosecution in the complaint and the counter-complaint filed by each other. They have decided to move on in their lives.

¶89

By applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned Madhukar and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others case, it will only help both the petitioner and respondent No.2 to lead their lives peacefully. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶90