Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22201
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S RACHAIAH, J
SRI YOURAJ S/O ANGUDRAO JAMKHANDE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200579 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI GANESH NAIK
For the Respondents: SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, SRI SHIVASHARANA REDDY
Court can quash FIR in non-compoundable offences if parties reconcile, affirming inherent jurisdiction despite legal restrictions, considering gravity and nature of relationships.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376(2)(n) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing FIR - Accused and victim married and settled, seeking to quash proceedings for non-compoundable offence - Supreme Court affirms inherent jurisdiction to quash in light of compromise - Considerations on gravity of offences and nature of private settlement amongst family members were paramount. (Paras 7, 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of rape based on a complaint filed by the victim who later married him and sought to withdraw allegations citing amicable settlement.
Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the compromise and the proceedings in the FIR were quashed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the quashing could be entertained in view of the nature of the offence and relationships between parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that compelling circumstances existed for allowing the quashing due to the importance of family reconciliation amidst the background of compromise, notwithstanding non-compoundable nature of the offence as clarified by Supreme Court precedent.
Result: The Criminal Petition is allowed, and proceedings are hereby quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's observations on jurisdiction and evidence of compromise. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. facts surrounding the complaint and the subsequent marriage. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. arguments concerning the appropriateness of quashing the fir due to compromise. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court considers reconciliation and inherent powers for quashing. (Para 7) |
| 5. court's application of inherent powers in this context. (Para 8) |
| 6. application of law on quashing in light of supreme court guidance. (Para 9) |
| 7. conclusion to allow the petition based on the circumstances. (Para 10) |
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)
The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashing of FIR in Cr.No.4/2024, registered by the Hulsoor police station for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(n) of IPC pending on the file of learned II Addl. District and Session Judge, Bidar in S.C.No.5029/2024.
The brief facts of the case
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant viz., Muskan Banu D/o Md. Akbar Pathan lodged the complaint against the petitioner stating that when she was going her land by walk through the land of the petitioner, he took the victim forcibly by closing her mouth and committing rape on her. He repeatedly committed rape on her while she was going to her land, as a result, she was four months pregnant and she could not tell the same to her parents or anyone due to fear. When the said pregnancy has been disclosed to the family members of the victim, they rushed to the police station and lodged the complaint against the petitioner. Based on the complaint, the respondent - police registered a case in Cr.No.4/2024 against the petitioner. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted for the offence punishable under Section
376(2)(n) of IPC .
3. Heard learned counsel Sri. Ganesh Naik for the petitioner and Sri. Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State and Sri. Shivasharana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the victim married each other and living together happily and also leading family life as husband and wife. The victim did not wish to continue the case against the petitioner, since they have compromised the matter and living together happily. Under such circumstances, the proceedings against the petitioner certainly would be abuse of process of law.
5. It is further submitted that in a case, where the petitioner and the victim compromised the matter in order to maintain quietus among themselves, this Court may invoke inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. Even though it is a non compoundable and cognizable offence and moreover, it is not permissible under the law to compound such offences. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently submitted that in a case where the offence committed against the women and children have to be looked into very seriously. Under such circumstances, it would not be possible or appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Even though, they compromised the matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again issued guidelines in respect of the method and manner in which, such cases are required to be dealt with. Therefore, the petitioner has to face the trial. Hence, the petition has to be rejected. Making such submissions, the learned HCGP for the respondent - State prays to allow the petition.
7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, it is relevant to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in2022 14 SCC (531) held that even in case, invoking non compoundable offence, power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C ., are not restricted by the provisions deals under Section 320 of Cr.P.C . which means Hon'ble Supreme Court can exercise inherent power independently notwithst
