(Prayers: This Crl.p is filed u/s 528 of BNSS (new), u/s.482 of Cr.p.c.(old), praying to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No. 180/2022 dated 29.11.2022 registered by the 1st respondent police under the provisions of Sec.143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 326, 109, 506, 504 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code in the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Bidar, pending on the file of PRL. District and Sessions Judge at Bidar in SC No.53/2025 and etc.

This Crl.p is filed u/s 528 of BNSS (new), u/s.482 of Cr.p.c.(old), praying to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.180/2022 dated 29.11.2022 registered by the 1st respondent police under the provisions of Sec.143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 326, 109, 506, 504 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code in pending on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Bidar in S.C.No.53/2025 and etc.)

Venkatesh Naik T, J.

Oral Order:

1. Criminal Petition No.200544/2026 is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 and Criminal Petition No.200674/2026 is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.6 to 8 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS, 2023 praying to quash the entire proceedings in S.C.No.53/2025 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar.

2. On the complaint of respondent No.2, the case came to be registered in Crime No.180/2022 against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 326, 109, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The matter has been investigated by the Investigating Officer and he has filed charge sheet before the jurisdictional court and the matter is committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Now the stage is for appearance of the accused persons. Hence, taking C/W CRL.P No. 200674 of 2026 exception to the same, the petitioners have sought to quash the entire proceedings pending before the Trial Court.

3. The accusation made against these petitioners as noted in column No.10 of First Information Report and also column No.17 of the charge sheet is that on 22.07.2022 at 9.00 p.m. accused Nos.1 to 8 picked up quarrel with CW-1/de-facto complainant, abused him in filthy language, made criminal intimidation to eliminate him, accused No.2 assaulted him with iron road on his head and assaulted on his right finger and accused Nos.3, 6 and 9 also assaulted him with their hands and legs. Hence, he was shifted to district hospital for treatment. Thus, a complaint has been lodged which led to registration of FIR and investigation.

4. Both the parties have filed I.A.No.4/2026 in Criminal Petition No.200674/2026 and I.A.No.3/2026 under Section 320 (8) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C./Section 359(8) read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for compounding of offences alleged. The interim applications are filed by both the parties, signed by them and their respective counsels. Accused No.1 is appearing through video conference, accused Nos.2 to 8 are present before the Court. Learned HCGP, de-facto complainant, petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 8 and their respective counsels are present. In the applications, both the parties have filed their affidavit and stated that they have compromised the matter amicably on the advise of their family members and elders. They have also stated that the compromise is free and voluntary one. The second respondent has also stated that there is no coercion or threat from the accused persons.

5. Perused the entire charge sheet. The allegations made in the charge sheet demonstrates that there was a dispute between the de-facto complainant and accused persons in respect of cheque bounce cases. Thus, these accused persons attempted to commit his murder. But on the advice of elders of both the family, they have filed this application. Therefore, continuation of prosecution against these petitioners is not at all necessary and that would be nothing but abuse of process of law. Since the alleged offences are non-compoundable in nature, the accused prayed to quash the proceedings and permit to compound the offences. As the matter is settled between the parties, it is just and necessary to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C./Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to quash the entire proceedings.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 at Para Nos.31 to 35 has held as under:

               "31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

               (I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal NC: 2023:KHCK: 6872 proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

               (II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

               (i) ends of justice, or

               (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

               (III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on NC: 2023:KHC-K:6872 the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

               (IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly 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.

               (V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

               (VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.                   (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.

               32. After having clarified the legal position in the manner aforesaid, we proceed to discuss the case at hand.

               33. In the present case, FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 was registered under Sections 307, 324, 323, 34 IPC. Investigation was completed, whereafter challan was presented in the court against the petitioner herein. Charges have also been framed; the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. At this juncture, parties entered into compromise on the basis of which petition under Section 482 of the Code was filed by the petitioners namely the accused persons for quashing of the criminal proceedings under the said FIR. As per the copy of the settlement which was annexed along with the petition, the compromise took place between the parties on 12.7.2013 when respectable members of the Gram Panchayat held a meeting under the Chairmanship of Sarpanch. It is stated that on the intervention of the said persons/Panchayat, both the parties were agreed for compromise and have also decided to live with peace in future with each other. It was argued that since the parties have decided to keep harmony between the parties so that in future they are able to live with peace and love and they are the residents of the same village, the High Court should have accepted the said compromise and quash the proceedings.

               34. We find from the impugned order that the sole reason which weighed with the High Court in refusing to accept the settlement between the parties was the nature of injuries. If we go by that factor alone, normally we would tend to agree with the High Court's approach. However, as pointed out hereinafter, some other attendant and inseparable circumstances also need to be kept in mind which compel us to take a different view.

               35. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., "respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized". This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the co-ordinate bench in Criminal petition No.102688/2025 (Dharwad Bench) disposed on 14.10.2025 and this Court in Criminal Petition No.200548/2026 disposed of on 12.05.2026 compounded the offence under Section 306 of IPC respectively.

8. A perusal of the aforesaid decision and judgment of the co-ordinate bench and the judgment passed by this Court and the facts and circumstances and the material available on record, it appears that the second respondent had filed the case against the petitioners with misconception of facts and in a fit of anger. Now second respondent has realized his mistake and he is intending to take back his case registered against the petitioners on the advice of elders of both the family as they hail from same community. In this context, the Court finds that, the elders of the village and their family intervened in the matter and parties have settled their disputes and have decided to live peacefully in future. This becomes an important consideration. In view of the compromise held between the parties, further proceedings or trial of the case would not be arise and in case if the trial is proceeded, even at that juncture also there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though the role attributed to the accused persons is not clear and the defacto complainant has not stated in clear terms as to the individual overt act of each accused so as to attract the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Thus, the chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be very remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. When the Court takes all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the Court is of the opinion that the compromise between the parties requires to be accepted and the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused persons pending before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar are liable to be quashed.

9. Hence, the compromise petition is accepted. In view of the settlement arrived between the parties and in view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions cited supra, it is necessary to permit the parties to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. Hence, the Court proceeds to pass the following:

                                                 ORDER

               The criminal petitions are allowed.

               The proceedings in Crime No.180/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 326, 109, 506, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC pending on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar in S.C.No.53/2025 is hereby quashed.

               I.A.No.1/2026 is allowed accordingly.

               Pending I.A.s, if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration.