Karnataka High Court Quashes SC/ST Case Against Minister KH Muniyappa, Says Complainant Cannot Renege On Settlement

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed the criminal proceedings pending against Karnataka Cabinet Minister K.H. Muniyappa, who holds the Food and Civil Supplies portfolio, in connection with an alleged assault incident dating back to 2013, holding that the complainant could not selectively accept a 'mutual' settlement and then file a protest petition against the 'B' Report filed by the police in the Minister's case.

A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna was hearing a petition filed by the Minister and a former Zilla Panchayat Member for quashing the offences against them, punishable under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) r/w Section 34 of the IPC, and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

In an event connected to the 2013 Legislative Assembly Elections, there was reportedly a clash between the petitioner and the complainant, both prominent Congress leaders at the time, since the complainant V Shankar was granted the Kolar Gold Fields Constituency to contest, depriving the daughter of the Minister a seat.

According to the complaint filed by V Shankar, the petitioner-Minister along with the former Zilla Panchayat Member and associates, assaulted the complainant during the 2013 Election campaigns. However, a counter case was also filed by the petitioner-Minister against the complainant afterwards.

In the case pending against the Minister, the police conducted investigation and filed a 'B' Report. While the Investigation was ongoing in the counter-case registered by the Minister against the complainant, the complainant approached the High Court to quash the proceedings. The High Court allowed the aforesaid petition after recording a 'mutual' settlement between the parties.

The compromise, entered into on September 12, 2019, recorded that both parties have mutually settled their disputes and in terms of such settlement, respondent no.2[Minister] has withdrawn all allegations made against the petitioner [V Shankar].

However, post settlement, the complainant took a contrary stance and approached the trial court yet again by filing a protest petition against the 'B Report' filed in the case against the Minister and former Zilla Panchayat Member.

“…In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the sword of crime that was hanging against the complainant comes to be closed. In all fairness, the complainant in the case at hand ought to have filed the settlement before the concerned Court where, the 'B' Report had been filed and the said 'B' Report was pending consideration at the hands of that Court. What the complainant would do is a volte face. He would appear before the concerned Court and not file a settlement, but a protest petition to the 'B' Report so filed…”, the court pointed out.

The protest petition was accepted, the 'B' Report was rejected, and cognizance was taken by the concerned Court. The trial court, however, recorded the terms of the settlement/compromise and noted that 'it does not specifically say which case has to be closed', and therefore took cognizance of the offence.

“…. The settlement memo that was filed was clear that the petitioners and the complainant had mutually settled their disputes. If the foundation of the settlement was mutually settling the dispute, it cannot be that it was settling only the crime against the complainant [V Shankar] and not the crime against the petitioners [Minister & Zilla Panchayat Member]. The complainant ought to have accepted the settlement in all fairness and not filed a protest petition before the concerned Court. Therefore, on the sole score that the crime against the petitioners stood evaporated on the settlement that was arrived at mutually of all the disputes pending between them, a protest petition then filed and cognizance taken must tumble down”, the court concluded.

Accordingly, the court allowed the petition preferred by the Minister and the former Zilla Panchayat Member and quashed the entire proceedings pending before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

The Minister was represented by Advocate M. Shivaprakash, while HCGP Waheeda M.M. appeared for the State and Advocate Gautham Nettar appeared for the complainant- V. Shankar.

Case Title: K.H. Muniyappa & Anr. v. State by Robertsonpet Police Station & Anr.

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4935 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 249

Click Here To Read/Download Order