Matrimonial dispute FIR under BNS and Dowry Prohibition Act sections was sought to be quashed after parties settled. Court relied on Gian Singh and B.S. Joshi, accepted affidavits reporting compromise, and quashed proceedings against all accused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9608 CRL.P No. 201570 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201570 OF 2024 [482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)]
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SWETA KULKARNI Location: High Court Of Karnataka
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 5 ARE ALL R/O KONGANDA S SHIVAPUR VILLAGE, TQ.WADAGERA, DIST.YADAGIR – 585355
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9608 CRL.P No. 201570 of 2024
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI VISHWANATH TIPPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED 482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 (NEW) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.94/2024 OF RAICHUR WOMEN POLICE STATION, REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1 TO 7 FOR THE COMMISSION OF ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 85, 115(2) READ WITH 3(5) OF BHARATIYA
NYAYA SANHITA (BNS), 2023 AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AND JMFC, RAICHUR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
ORAL ORDER
Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondent No.1/State.
Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant is
represented by the learned counsel Sri Vishwanath Tippanna.
Petitioners are seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.94/2024 of Raichur Women Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 85, 115 (2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9608 CRL.P No. 201570 of 2024
with Section 528 of BNSS reporting compromise and seeking permission of the Court to compound the offence.
complainant.
the issue and in furtherance of the same, they have decided to file the present compromise petition seeking to put an end to the present criminal proceedings and to protect their marriage.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9608 CRL.P No. 201570 of 2024
interested in continuing with the complaint lodged by her and she has no objection for quashing the proceedings.
another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Apex Court, at para 58 has held as under:
"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9608 CRL.P No. 201570 of 2024
offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed."
others v. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, has held that High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code (528 of BNSS, 2023).
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
arising out of Crime No.94/2024 of Raichur
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9608 CRL.P No. 201570 of 2024
Women Police Station, Raichur pending on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (JD) and
JMFC, Raichur are hereby quashed.
Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE
SWK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT:SI
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute can be quashed following a settlement between the parties despite offences not being compoundable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶6
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
B.S. Joshi v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶7
B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Shivaraj s/o Sabanna
Sabanna s/o Gaddeppa
Mahadevamma w/o Sabanna
Hanumantaraya s/o Sabanna
Channareddy s/o Sabanna
Banashree d/o Sabanna
Mohammad Nawaz
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
