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.100250 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. KOUSAR W/O MOHAMMADSAHID BISTI AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. H. NO. 56, MARKET STREET, CAMP TAL. & DIST. BELAGAVI 590001.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHADAB HASANSAB YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH CAMP POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, HIGH COURT DHARWAD-580011.

2. MR MOHAMMEDSHAHID S/O MOHAMMEDUMER BISTI AGE 37 YEARS, OCC PVT EMPLOYMENT, R/O H NO 56, MARKET STREET, Digita lly signed by PRATIBHA M CAMP TAL AND DIST BELAGAVI 590001 PATIL …RESPONDENTS Location: HIGH COURT OF (BY SRI. DAYANAND SANGRESHI, HCGP FOR R1;

KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH SRI. R.R. BADEGHAR, ADV. FOR R2)

DHARWAD THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS (U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1589/2024 PENDING ON THE FILES OF V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BELAGAVI REGISTERED FOR OFFENCE U/S 324 OF IPC BELAGAVI CAMP PS CR.NO. 64/2024 AS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a joint application under Section 359 r/w Section 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 is under Section 324 of IPC.

3. Both the petitioner and the respondent 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 petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

RAMGOPAL AND ANOTHER vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH². 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 Haryana4 which has been followed and further explained/elaborated 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 of offences given to the Court under Section 320 of the Code and quashing of criminal proc