(Prayer: This Crl.P. is filed u/S 482 Cr.PC (filed u/S 528 BNSS) by the advocate for the petitioner praying to quash the fir in Crime No.119/2026 registered by the Doddapete Police Station Shivamogga Pending in the file of JMFC 2nd Court at Shivamogga for the offences punishable under Sections Sec.115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023.

This Crl.P. is filed u/S 482 Cr.PC (filed u/S 528 BNNS) by the advocate for the petitioner praying to quash the fir in Crime No.130/2026 registered by the Doddapete Police Station Shivamogga Pending on the file of the JMFC 2nd Court at Shivamogga for the offences p/u/S 109(1), 115(2), 352, 329(4), 351(2) of BNS 2023.)

Oral Order

1. Sri. Nagaraj M.Bhat, learned counsel, undertakes to appear and files vakalath for respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 - de facto complainant is also present.

2. Petitioner in Crl.P.No.7050/2026 is the daughter-in- law and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7108/2026 is the son of de facto complainant.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7050/2026 is also otherwise relative to respondent - de facto complainant, being grand-daughter of her brother. Respondent No.2- de facto complainant is aged about 80 years.

4. In her complaint dated 02.04.2026 subject matter of Crl.P.No.7050/2026 defacto complainant has alleged as under -





5. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint a case in Crime No.119/2026 has been registered against the daughter-in-law for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023 came to be registered before the respondent - Police.

6. Few days later, another complaint dated 07.04.2026 came to be filed by the de facto complainant against the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7108/2026 which reads as under :







7. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint a case in Crime No.130/2026 has been registered against her son for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 352, 329(4) 351(2) of BNS, 2023 came to be registered before the respondent - Police.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the respondent No.2 - de facto complainant has been used and coerced to file the aforesaid complaints by her other son - Harish Babu who is the brother of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7108/2026. The said brother is inimically disposed of as the petitioners are staying in a portion of his house.

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - de facto complainant, on instructions, submit that since the aforesaid complaints were filed on mistake of facts, he has been instructed to withdraw those complaints.

10. On a query by this Court, respondent No.2 - de facto complainant who is present before this Court in person confirms that she intending to withdraw the complaints. She further swears that no such incident had ever taken place and that she had filed the complaint under undue influence. She submits that she has abundant love and respect for the petitioners, who are also taking care of her.

11. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Defacto complainant as well as respondent No.2-defacto complainant plead and urged for quashing of the aforesaid cases in Crime Nos.119/2026 and 130/2026 registered by Doddapete Police Station, Shivamogga.

12. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that though the offences in Crl.P.No.7050/2026 are compoundable, one of the offences in Crl.P.No.7108/2026 under Section 109 of BNS, 2023 is not compoundable, as such same cannot be quashed.

13. Heard. Perused the records.

14. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Averments in the complaint do not indicate any ill-will, ill-intention or motive. Even if the complaint allegations are taken on face value, there is no likelihood of petitioners being convicted of the alleged offences.

15. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2012)10 SCC 303, at paragraph 61 has held as under -

          "61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions of the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

16. Similarly, in case of K.Bharthi Devi and Another v. State of Telangana and Another, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 384, at paragraphs 41 and 42 has held as under-

          "41. It could thus be seen that this Court reiterates the position that the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

          42. Though in the said case (Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] ), the High Court had refused [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab CRM-M No. 27343 of 2013, order dated 8-10-2013 (P&H)] to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC to quash the proceedings wherein a serious offence under Section 307IPC was involved, this Court after taking into consideration various factors including that the elders of the village, including the Sarpanch, had intervened in the matter and the parties had not only buried their hatchet but had decided to live peacefully in the future, quashed and set aside the criminal proceedings under Section 307 IPC."

17. In the case of Naushey Ali & Others v. State of U.P. & Another reported in 2025 4 SCC 78, at paragraphs 31 and 32 has held as under -

          "31. We are also inclined to conclude that considering the overall circumstances, the nature of the weapon and the nature of the injury (fracture of the head of distal phalanx of left ring finger), the offence alleged, on facts, does not fall in that category of cases where the court should deny relief in the event of a settlement. At the highest, the offence alleged could be one under Section 326IPC. It could not be said, on facts, considering all the circumstances that this is a crime which has such an harmful effect on the public and that it has the effect of seriously threatening the well-being of the society. We make it clear that we are saying so on the facts of the present case.

          32. We are also firmly of the opinion that proceeding with the trial, when the parties have amicably resolved the dispute in the present case, would be futile and the ends of justice require that the settlement be given effect to by quashing the proceedings. It would be a grave abuse of process to let this trial remain pending under the above circumstances, particularly when the dispute is settled and resolved."

18. Thus, the law now being well settled even if the offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS, 2023, the facts, otherwise, indicate the dispute purely being domestic between the private parties and not against any members of the society, this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.PC (528 of BNSS, 2023) can quash the proceedings.

19. In the light of the facts narrated above and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the settled position of law, this Court do not see any reason to continue the proceedings, as the same would amount to abuse of process of law also otherwise may make further disharmony amongst the family members. Accordingly, the following :

ORDER

          i. Crl.P.No.7050/2026 is allowed.

          ii. Proceedings in Crime No.119/2026 registered by Doddapete Police Station, Shivamogga, pending on the file of JMFC II Court at Shivamogga for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023 are quashed.

          iii. Crl.P.No.7108/2026 is allowed.

          iv. Proceedings in Crime No.130/2026 registered by Doddapete Police Station, Shivamogga, pending on the file of JMFC II Court at Shivamogga for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 329(4), 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023 are quashed.

          v. Since the proceedings are quashed, retaining the petitioner in Crime No.130/2026 is of no consequence and, hence he shall be released forthwith.

          In view of disposal of petitions, I.A.No.3/2026 in Crl.P.No.7050/2026 and I.A. No.2/2026 in Crl.P.No.7108/2026 are disposed of accordingly.