Sri. Karthik Bharadwaj Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TAVAREKERE PS, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADDRESS AT, KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶29

SRI VIJAY RAJ P SON OF P JAYARAJ, AGED MAJOR, RESIDENT AT NO. 629, 9^TH ‘D’ MAIN ROAD, HAMPINAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 040.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1 SRI. VISHWAS N.B, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶32

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTIONI OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION, READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023), ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER FORM TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN CC NO.3145 OF 2024.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶34

3 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:24855 WP No. 20172 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following relief:-

¶39

“a. In exercise of the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other form to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Hon’ble Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in CC No.3145 of 2024;

¶40

b. To quash the First Information Report bearing No.0019 of 2024 and the Police Report / Charge Sheet No.40 of 2024 registered at Tavarekere Police Station;

¶41

c. To issue any other Order or direction as may be deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 – complainant have filed a Memo of Compromise dated 08.07.2025 duly signed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 and their respective counsel and the same is taken on record.

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24855 WP No. 20172 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 5, respondent No.2complainant and their respective counsel are physically present before the Court and they admit the contents of the aforesaid Memo of Compromise, which reads as under:-

¶46

“ MEMO OF COMPROMISE

¶47

The counsels for both the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 respectfully submit as under:

¶48

1. The Petitioners herein and the Respondent No.2 / Complainant, Sri. Vijay Raj P., have amicably resolved all disputes arising out of the incident dated 19-Jan-2024 during the football match at Sports N Eats, Kodigehalli, Bengaluru.

¶49

2. In the spirit of sportsmanship and to maintain their cordial relationship as fellow members of the local sporting community, the Petitioners have voluntarily agreed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.80,000/(Rupees Eighty Thousand Only) to the Respondent No.2 towards his medical expenses and any inconvenience caused. The Respondent No.2 accepts this amount as fair and adequate compensation for the injury sustained during the football match. The Petitioners have paid the entire compensation amount of Rs.80,000/- to the Respondent No.2 by way of cash and the same has been acknowledged by the Respondent No.2.

¶50

5 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:24855 WP No. 20172 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

3. The Respondent No.2 unconditionally withdraws all allegations against the Petitioners and states that he has no objection to the quashing of FIR No.0019 of 2024 registered at Tavarekere Police Station and all consequent criminal proceedings pending in CC No.3145 of 2024 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District. The Respondent No.2 confirms that he will not pursue any further legal proceedings, civil or criminal, against the Petitioners in relation to the said incident.

¶54

4. Both parties agree that this compromise is arrived at in the larger interest of justice and to prevent unnecessary burden on the criminal justice system with a matter that is essentially of a sporting nature. The parties reaffirm their commitment to continue participating in sporting activities and maintain the sporting spirit that has characterized their relationship over the years.

¶55

5. This compromise memo is being filed jointly before this Hon’ble Court with a request to consider the same while disposing of the present Writ Petition, and to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS to quash the criminal proceedings in view of the amicable settlement reached between the parties.”

¶56

In view of the aforesaid settlement entered into

¶57

between the petitioners and respondent No.2 , I pass the following:

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24855 WP No. 20172 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) The petition is disposed of in terms of the Memo of Compromise dated 08.07.2025.

¶62

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.3145/2024 (arising out of Crime No.19/2024 of 1^st respondent – Police) pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, insofar as the petitioners are concerned are hereby quashed.

¶63

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶64

BMC

Sri. Karthik Bharadwaj v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Karthik Bharadwaj v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badachandraiah Devaraju @ B C Devaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Abhinav Lal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Vasuki M S Vs State by Karnataka

Sri Dinesh Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Kusumavathi Vs the Government of Karnataka

Jajjara Bharat Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka