IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100750 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. ROHIT PRAKASH DEVANGA AGE: 22 YRS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O: SAMBAJI NAGAR, VADAGAON, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

2. MEENA PRAKASH, AGE: 48 YRS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: #10 R K LAYOUT, DODDAKANNALLI, BEHIND ASHA BHAVAN, BANGALORE.

3. NITIN SHETTY AGE: 28 YRS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KARABAR GALLI, Digit ally signed by PRATIBHA M VADAGAON, TAQ: BELAGAVI, PATIL DIST: BELAGAVI.

Location: HIGH COURT OF …PETITIONERS KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH (BY SRI. ANWARALI D NADAF, ADVOCATE)

DHARWAD AND:

1. THE STATE BY BELAGAVI DCRE PS REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, OFFICE AT DHARWAD HIGH COURT DHARWAD 560001

2. VAISHNAVI KHANAPURI AGE: 21YRS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: TQ. HALKARNI KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI 590002.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DAYANAND SANGRESHI, ADV. FOR R1;

SRI. W.M. SHALUPURI, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS (U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.) PRAYING TO QUASH COMPLAINT AND FIR IN ITS ENTIRETY IN CRIME NO.0001/2026, BY BELAGAVI DCRE PS, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) R/W 3(5) OF BNS AND U/S 3, 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961, AND U/S 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) OF THE SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2015, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BELAGAVI; B. AMONGST THE OTHER GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND THE GROUNDS RELIED IN THE AVERMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS PETITION. C. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PRESENT CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION A/W IA NO.

1/2026 FOR STAY, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a joint application under Section 359 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS, 2023’, contending that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the matter is predominantly private in nature and does not seriously affect the society. Therefore, prays to quash the proceedings by allowing the application filed in this regard.

2. The offence alleged in the present case are under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act, 2015²

3. Both the petitioners and the respondents are present before the Court and have filed a joint application duly signed by them. The learned counsels appearing for both sides have also affixed their respective signatures on the said application.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMGOPAL AND ANOTHER vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH³. 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:

Hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC and ST Act’

2021 SCC Online SC 834

“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 requ