IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100706 OF 2025 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)

BETWEEN:

1. SAMPRIT S/O. KESHAV NAIK, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. FLAT NO.140, SUDARSHAN BUILDING, KAVERI NAGAR, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590006.

2. KESHAV S/O. SHANKAR NAIK, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER, R/O. FLAT NO.140, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA SUDARSHAN BUILDING, KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, KAVERI NAGAR, Dharwad Bench TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590006.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH ANKOLA P.S., TQ. ANKOLA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-587314.

2. SMT. AISHWARYA W/O. GOPAL NAIK, AGE: 24 YEARS, R/O. HICHKAD, TQ. ANKOLA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-587314.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DAYANAND SANGRESHI, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI D. V. PATTAR, ADV. FOR SRI C. M. HOSAMANAI, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (U/S.528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.528/2024 (ANKOLA P.S. CRIME NO.0068/2024) PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANKOLA REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.498A, 323, 354C, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute substantially relates to a family matter, which has been given the colour of criminal proceedings. It is further submitted that both parties have now settled the matter, and accordingly, they have filed a memo of settlement before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ankola, in M.C.No.26/2024, a copy of which has been produced before this Court.

2. The said memo of settlement establishes that both parties have resolved the dispute, and a decree of divorce has also been granted. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondent No.2, and the said memo of settlement has also been filed by respondent No.2 herself.

3. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal and Another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh¹, and another decision in the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466, in this regard, wherein at paragraph Nos.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 it is held as under:

“8. We find that there are cases where the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in those offences which are uncompoundable has been recognized. The only difference is that under Section 320(1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has discretionary power to refuse to compound the offence. However, compounding under Section 320(1) of the Code is permissible only in minor offences or in non-serious offences. Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in respect of the offences enumerated in Section 320(2) of the Code, compounding is permissible but it requires the approval of the Court. Insofar as serious offences are concerned, quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise is within the discretionary powers of the High Court. In such cases, the power is exercised under Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are quashed. Contours of these powers were described by this Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana3 which has been followed and further explained/elaborated

2021 SCC Online SC 834

3 (2003) 4 SCC 675

in so many cases thereafter, which are taken note of in the discussion that follows hereinafter.

9. At the same time, one has to keep in mind the subtle distinction between the power of compounding