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 REVISION PETITION NO.100093 OF 2026 (397 OF Cr.PC/438 OF BNSS)

BETWEEN:

MR. K. FAROOQU SON OF KHAJA SAB, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. WARD NO.1, VALLUR MASJID SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BALALRI DISTRICT-583121.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI SABEEL AHMED DARVESHU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. M. KRISHNA S/O. MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. WARD NO.21, VASAVI NAGAR, ADONI ROAD, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BALALRI DISTRICT-583121.

…RESPONDENT Digitally signed (BY SRI MALATESH HIPPALI, ADVOCATE by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397 Location: High Court of Karnataka, R/W. SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Dharwad Bench (U/S.438 R/W. 442 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 02.12.2025 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BALLARI (COMMERCIAL COURT) IN CRL.A.NO.17/2025 BY CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 01.07.2025 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT SIRUGUPPA IN C.C.NO.1872/2021 IN SO FAR AS ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE BY ORDERING TO PAY RS. 2,42,000/- AS FINE AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS AND OUT OF FINE AMOUNT A SUM OF RS.2,40,000/- SHALL BE PAYABLE TO THE COMPLAINANT AS COMPENSATION AND THE REST OF THE AMOUNT SHALL BE DEFRAYED AS STATE EXPENSES IS PAYABLE TO RESPONDENT AS COMPENSATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S.138 OF NI ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 compromise petition under Section 320 (2), (8) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)/359 (2) & (8) of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act, 1881) 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 petition filed in this regard.

2. The offence alleged in the present case is under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3. Both the petitioner and the respondent are present before the Court and have filed a compromise petition duly signed by them. The learned counsels appearing for both sides have also affixed their respective signatures on the said compromise petition.

4. 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

2021 SCC Online SC 834

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.