Chidanand Laxman Savadi Vs State of Karnataka

LAXMAN SANGAPPA SAVADI, S/O SANGAPPA SAVADI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT: 985/B, OPPOSITE SMS COLLEGE, SATTI ROAD, VTC: ATHANI, PO ATHANI, BELAGAVI - 591 304, KARNATAKA.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. G. R. VENKATESH MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ATHANI POLICE STATION, ATHANI, BELGAUM 591 304, REPRESENTED BY THE SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:35880 CRL.P No. 124 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 100189 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

NINGARAJ KAREPPA, KARENNAVAR, S/O KAREPPA KARENNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SHIRAHATTI TALUK, ATHANI, BELGAUM DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 591 304, PH: +91 95385 68252 AND +91 63668 20435.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1; SRI ABHISHEK C PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT DATED 04.01.2026 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN CRIME NO.4/2026 REGISTERED BY THE ATHANI POLICE STATION, BELGAUM, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 AND 190 OF BNS, 2023 MARKED AS DOCUMENTS NO.1 AND 2 RESPECTIVELY, TO THIS PETITION.

¶26

IN CRL.P NO. 100189/2026

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SRI. NINGARAJ KAREPPA KERENNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O KAREPPA KERENNAVAR, R/AT SHIRAHATTI VILLAGE, ATHANI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 591 304.

¶29

...PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI. D.M. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35880 CRL.P No. 124 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 100189 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

AND:

¶34

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ATHANI POLICE STATION, ATHANI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD - 580 011.

¶35

SRI. SHRIKANTH RAMACHANDRA ALAGUR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O RAMACHANDRA, R/AT KOHALLI VILLAGE, ATHANI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 591 248.

¶36

...RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1; SRI.VINAY RAKSHIT V, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶38

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.528 BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 03.01.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND FIRST INFORMATION REPORT BEARING CRIME NO.02/2026 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1-ATHANI POLICE OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(5), 109(1), 115(2), 351(2) AND 352 OF BNS, 2023 DATED 03.01.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT ATHANI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT AND ALL FURTHER INVESTIGATION ARISING THEREFROM THAT HAS BEEN INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1.

¶39

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:35880 CRL.P No. 124 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 100189 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶44

ORAL ORDER

¶45

In Crl.P.No.124/2025, the petitioners are before this

¶46

Court seeking the following prayers:

¶47

"(i) quash the FIR and Complaint dated 04/01/2026 against the Petitioners herein in Crime No. 04/2026 registered by the Athani Police Station, Belgaum, pending on the file of the XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352, and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 marked as DOCUMENT NOS. 1 and 2 respectively, to this petition.

¶48

(ii) pass any other Order / Orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶49

In Crl.P.No.100189/2026, the petitioner is before

¶50

this Court seeking the following prayers:

¶51

"I. Quash the Complaint dated 03.01.2026 vide Annexure-A and First Information Report bearing Crime No. 02/2026 registered by the Respondent No.1-Athani Police for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 109(1), 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 dated 03.01.2026 vide Annexure-B , pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Athani, Belagavi District and all further investigation arising therefrom that has been initiated against the Petitioner/Accused 1

¶52

II. Further this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity."

¶53

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35880 CRL.P No. 124 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 100189 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

In Crl.P.No.124/2026, heard Sri.G.R.Venkatesh

¶56

Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Abhishek C Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. In Crl.P.No.100189/2026, heard Sri.D.M.Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Vinay Rakshit V, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

¶57

Though the offences is the one punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the facts in the case at hand is that in Crl.P.No.100189/2026, the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioner before respondent No.1 alleging that on 03.01.2026 at about 11:00 am he came near the house of Athani MLA Sri.Laxman Savadi in filthy language. It is alleged that when he questioned them, they assaulted him by hand and gave him life threats. The wound certificate indicates that injuries are simple in nature. The

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:35880 CRL.P No. 124 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 100189 of 2026

¶59

6 -

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

parties to the lis are present either physically or through virtual

¶62

mode.

¶63

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:35880 CRL.P No. 124 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 100189 of 2026

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

In Crl.P.No.124/2026, the petitioners have filed

¶66

application seeking compounding of the offence as obtaining under Section 359 read with Section 528 of BNS, 2023 along with verifying affidavits. The compounding application reads as follows:

¶67

"APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 359 READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURKASHA SANHITA, 2023

¶68

The Petitioners and Respondent No.2 above named humbly states as under:

¶69

1. It is submitted that the Criminal Petition No. 124/2026 is filed seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No. 04/2026 of the Respondent Athani Police Station, Belgaum registered for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending on the file of XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Bengaluru, registered against the Petitioners herein.

¶70

2. It is submitted that the FIR in Crime No. 04/2026 was registered due to the political rivalries between the parties. The Respondent No.2 is no longer interested in prosecuting the criminal case against the Petitioners in Crime No. 04/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 of the Respondent Athani Police Station, Belgaum.

¶71

3. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 has agreed not to prosecute the instant criminal case in view of the amicable settlement between the parties with the intervention of elders. Hence, the Respondent No. 2 has no objections for quashing, closing or compounding of the FIR in Crime No. 04/2026 of the Respondent Athani Police Station, Belgaum.

¶72

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:35880 CRL.P No. 124 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 100189 of 2026

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

WHEREFORE , the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to compound the offences as alleged against the Petitioners and further to quash the FIR in Crime No. 04/2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending on the file of XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Bengaluru in the interest of justice and equity."

¶75

In Crl.P.No.100189/2026, the petitioner has filed

¶76

application seeking compounding of the offence as obtaining under Section 359 read with Section 528 of BNS, 2023 along with verifying affidavits. The compounding application reads as follows:

¶77

" APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 359 READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURKASHA SANHITA, 2023

¶78

The Petitioner and Respondent No.2 above named humbly states as under:

¶79

1. It is submitted that the Criminal Petition No. 100189/2026 is filed seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No. 02/2026 of the Respondent Athani Police Station, Belgaum registered for the offences punishable under sections 3(5), 109(1), 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Athani, Belagavi District registered against the Petitioner herein.

¶80

2. It is submitted that the FIR in Crime No. 02/2026 is registered due to the political rivalries between the parties. The Respondent No.2 is no longer interested in prosecuting the criminal case against the Petitioner in Crime No. 02/2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 3(5), 109(1), 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of

¶81

9 -

¶82

NC: 2026:KHC:35880 CRL.P No. 124 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 100189 of 2026

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 of the Respondent Athani Police Station, Belgaum.

¶85

3. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 has agreed not to prosecute the instant criminal case in view of the amicable settlement between the parties with the intervention of elders. Hence, the Respondent No. 2 has no objections for quashing, closing or compounding of the FIRs in Crime No. 02/2026 of the Respondent Athani Police Station, Belgaum.

¶86

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to compound the offences as alleged against the Petitioner and further to quash the FIR in Crime No. 02/2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 3(5), 109(1), 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Athani, Belagavi District of the Respondent Athani Police Station, Belgaum, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶87

Since the injuries are simple in nature, it would not

¶88

attract the ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶89

In an identical issue, the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF

¶90

MADHYA PRADESH VS. LAXMI NARAYAN AND OTHERS¹ ,

¶91

has held as follows:

¶92

" 12 . Now so far as the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] is concerned, this Court in para 29.6 admitted that the offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, this Court further observed

¶93

1 (2019) 5 SCC 688

¶94

10 -

¶95

NC: 2026:KHC:35880 CRL.P No. 124 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 100189 of 2026

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

that the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed. Its further corroboration with the medical evidence or other evidence is to be seen, which will be possible during the trial only. Hence, the decision in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] shall be of no assistance to the accused in the present case.

¶98

13. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in Shiji [Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] , while quashing the FIR by observing that as the complainant has compromised with the accused, there is no possibility of recording a conviction, and/or the further trial would be an exercise in futility is concerned, we are of the opinion that the High Court has clearly erred in quashing the FIR on the aforesaid ground. It appears that the High Court has misread or misapplied the said decision to the facts of the cases on hand. The High Court ought to have appreciated that it is not in every case where the complainant has entered into a compromise with the accused, there may not be any conviction. Such observations are presumptive and many a time too early to opine. In a given case, it may happen that the prosecution still can prove the guilt by leading cogent evidence and examining the other witnesses and the relevant evidence/material, more particularly when the dispute is not a commercial transaction and/or of a civil nature and/or is not a private wrong. In Shiji [Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] , this Court found that the case had its origin in the civil dispute between the parties, which dispute was resolved by them and therefore this Court observed that: (SCC p. 713, para 19)

¶99

“19. … that being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations … will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose.”

¶100

In the aforesaid case, it was also further observed “that even the alleged two eyewitnesses, however, closely related to the complainant, were not supporting

¶101

11 -

¶102

NC: 2026:KHC:35880 CRL.P No. 124 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 100189 of 2026

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

the prosecution version”, and to that this Court observed and held that the continuance of the proceedings is nothing but an empty formality and Section 482 CrPC can, in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the courts below. Even in the said decision, in para 18, it is observed as under: (Shiji case [Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] , SCC p. 713)

¶105

“18. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 CrPC by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.”

¶106

Therefore, the said decision may be applicable in a case which has its origin in the civil dispute between the parties; the parties have resolved the dispute; that the offence is not against the society at large and/or the same may not have social impact; the dispute is a family/matrimonial dispute, etc. The aforesaid decision may not be applicable in a case where the offences alleged are very serious and grave offences, having a social impact like offences under Section 307 IPC. Therefore, without proper application of mind to the

¶107

12 -

¶108

NC: 2026:KHC:35880 CRL.P No. 124 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 100189 of 2026

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

relevant facts and circumstances, in our view, the High Court has materially erred in mechanically quashing the FIR, by observing that in view of the compromise, there are no chances of recording conviction and/or the further trial would be an exercise in futility. The High Court has mechanically considered the aforesaid decision of this Court in Shiji [Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] , without considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case.

¶111

14. Now so far as the conflict between the decisions of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] and Shambhu Kewat [State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 781] is concerned, in Shambhu Kewat [State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 781] , this Court has noted the difference between the power of compounding of offences conferred on a court under Section 320 CrPC and the powers conferred under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court. In the said decision, this Court further observed that in compounding the offences, the power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 CrPC and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby, while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing criminal proceedings or criminal complaint under Section 482 CrPC is guided by the material on record as to whether ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, although ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. However, in the subsequent decision in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] , the very Bench ultimately concluded in para 29 as under: (SCC pp. 482-84)

¶112

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to

¶113

13 -

¶114

NC: 2026:KHC:35880 CRL.P No. 124 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 100189 of 2026

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

¶117

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

¶118

29.2. 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 secure:

¶119

(i) ends of justice, or

¶120

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶121

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶122

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

¶123

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

¶124

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases

¶125

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:35880 CRL.P No. 124 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 100189 of 2026

¶126

HC-KAR

¶127

would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

¶128

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

¶129

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet

¶130

15 -

¶131

NC: 2026:KHC:35880 CRL.P No. 124 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 100189 of 2026

¶132

HC-KAR

¶133

to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”

¶134

15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

¶135

15.1 . That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the noncompoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

¶136

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

¶137

15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the

¶138

16 -

¶139

NC: 2026:KHC:35880 CRL.P No. 124 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 100189 of 2026

¶140

HC-KAR

¶141

Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

¶142

15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

¶143

15.5 [Ed.: Para 15.5 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./22/2019 dated 3-42019.] . While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is

¶144

17 -

¶145

NC: 2026:KHC:35880 CRL.P No. 124 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 100189 of 2026

¶146

HC-KAR

¶147

required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc."

¶148

16. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC mechanically and even when the investigation was under progress. Somehow, the accused managed to enter into a compromise with the complainant and sought quashing of the FIR on the basis of a settlement. The allegations are serious in nature. He used the firearm also in commission of the offence. Therefore, the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused is not at all considered by the High Court and solely on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the complainant, the High Court has mechanically quashed the FIR, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, which is not sustainable in the eye of the law. The High Court has also failed to note the antecedents of the accused.

¶149

17. In view of the above and for the reasons stated, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 7-10-2013 passed by the High Court in Laxmi Narayan v. State of M.P. [Laxmi Narayan v. State of M.P., 2013 SCC OnLine MP 7987] is hereby quashed and set aside, and the FIR/investigation/criminal proceedings be proceeded against the accused, and they shall be dealt with, in accordance with law."

¶150

8. The Apex Court considers whether offence under

¶151

section 307 could be accepted and closed on a compromise.

¶152

The Apex Court holds that the injuries should be seen and injuries seen in the case at hand depict that they are simple in nature.

¶153

18 - NC: 2026:KHC:35880 CRL.P No. 124 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 100189 of 2026

¶154

HC-KAR

¶155

The injury sustained by the complainant is said to

¶156

be simple in nature. Therefore, the wound certificate would depict that the injuries are simple in nature.

¶157

In that light, there would be no impediment for this Court to close the proceedings by accepting the settlement/compounding application between the parties.

¶158

The parties to the lis are present either physically or

¶159

through virtual mode.

¶160

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶161

ORDER

¶162

(i) Criminal Petitions are disposed .

¶163

(ii) In Crl.P.No.124/2026, proceedings in FIR and Complaint dated 04/01/2026 in Crime No.04/2026 pending on the file of the XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, stands quashed, qua the petitioners.

¶164

19 -

¶165

NC: 2026:KHC:35880 CRL.P No. 124 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 100189 of 2026

¶166

HC-KAR

¶167

(iii) In Crl.P.No.100189/2026, proceedings in Complaint dated 03.01.2026 and First Information Report bearing Crime No.02/2026 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Athani, Belagavi District, stands quashed, qua the petitioner.

¶168

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶169

CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Chidanand Laxman Savadi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chidanand Laxman Savadi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Gangadhar v Yavagal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shaila Suresh Babu Shet Vs Mr. Sriramalu Naidu

Mr. Armel, Vs State of Karnataka

Musaddiq Ulla Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Deepak S.R.K. Vs the State by Byatarayanapura Police Station

Sri. Kiran. S Vs State of Karnataka