Mr. S. Vishal v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2025CRL.P/10046/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of dowry-harassment FIR Cr.No.232/2023 (Basavanagudi Women PS; Ss.498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC; S.4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) on matrimonial settlement; divorce by mutual consent, decree dated 13.1.2025 in MC No.6919/2023 (S.13(1)(i-a) HMA); wife's no-objection; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; B.S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675; S.482 Cr.P.C.; S.528 BNSS 2023; CRL.P No.10046 of 2023; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Mohammad Nawaz, J.; decided 21.03.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:12059.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings arising out of Cr.No.232/2023 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station against the petitioners under Section 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; the application under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 and consequently the criminal petition were allowed. ¶¶59

Mr. S. Vishal Vs the State of Karnataka by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings in Cr.No.232/2023 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station (Sections 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) against the petitioners should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶¶36

Court's answer

The entire proceedings arising out of Cr.No.232/2023 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station against the petitioners under Section 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are quashed.

¶¶61

Ratio / Principle

As the parties have resolved the dispute and settled the matter, no purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings pending against the petitioners.

¶¶57

Key takeaways

On the strength of the principles in Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and B.S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675, criminal proceedings of a predominantly matrimonial/family character that have been settled between the parties warrant quashing; acting on that basis, the Court quashed the proceedings.ratio¶¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. (captioned 482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) by eight petitioners, including the husband (petitioner No.1) and his relatives, seeking quashing of FIR Cr.No.232/2023 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station, Bengaluru, registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 (wife) alleging physical and mental harassment in connection with dowry after her marriage with accused No.1, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending on the file of the XXXVII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru. During pendency, petitioner No.1's divorce proceeding against respondent No.2 (M.C.No.6919/2023, Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court) culminated in a mediated memorandum of settlement, Clause 9 of which recorded the parties' undertaking to co-operate in closing/quashing/withdrawing Crime No.232/2023 and allied cases (C.C.No.16794/2021, C.C.No.31683/2024, Crl.Misc.201/2023); the Family Court passed decree dated 13.1.2025 dissolving the marriage. A joint application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with affidavits was filed, and respondent No.2, present in Court, stated she had no objection to quashing. Relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, Mohammad Nawaz, J. held (21.03.2025) that no purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings, allowed the application and consequently the petition, and quashed the entire proceedings in Cr.No.232/2023.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12059 CRL.P No. 10046 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10046 OF 2023

¶7

(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. S. VISHAL S/O SHRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶10

SHANTHI, W/O SHRINIVAS,

¶11

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶12

V. SHRINIVAS, S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENT OF NO 18, ’ASHIRVAD’ MOUNASHRI LAYOUT, NEAR TR HOSPITAL, KOTHANUR DINNE MAIN ROAD, J P NAGAR, 8^TH PHASE, BANGALORE – 560 068.

¶15

SHAKUNTHALA

¶16

D/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO. 44, 1^ST FLOOR, CHANNASANDRA COLONY, BANGALORE- 560 098.

¶17

GRANESHWARI S/O YEKANTHASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12059 CRL.P No. 10046 of 2023

¶19

P. PALLAVI W/O. RAJESH M., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶20

Y. NIKHIL, S/O YEKANTHASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶21

PETITIONERS 5 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO 1/350, RAGHUVANAHALLI, BEHIND KSIT COLLEGE, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶22

ASWINI PURUSHOTHAM D/O V. PURUSHOTHAM, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO. T44, 33^RD A CROSS, 11MAIN, 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYA NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 041.

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. SHANTHA KUMAR H.T. ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE -560 001.

¶27

SMT. DHAKSHATHA W/O VISHAL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO. 18, ASHIRWAD NILAYA, JP NAGAR, 8^TH PHASE, NAVODHAYA NAGARA,

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12059 CRL.P No. 10046 of 2023

¶29

KOTTANUR DINNE MAIN ROAD, JP NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560078.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. D. LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶32

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.232/2023 OF BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXVII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 323, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF D.P. ACT.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

Petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the FIR in Cr.No.232/2023 registered against them at Basavanagudi Women Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶37

Complaint is lodged by respondent No.2 alleging that after her marriage with accused No.1, all the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:12059 CRL.P No. 10046 of 2023

¶40

accused subjected her to physical and mental harassment in connection with dowry etc.

¶41

Today, an application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is filed signed by the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 along with the affidavits of the parties.

¶42

It is stated that petitioner No.1 had instituted divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against respondent No.2 before the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court in MC No.6919/2023 and the matter was referred for mediation, wherein both the parties agreed that the marriage solemnized between them be dissolved subject to terms and conditions setforth in the mediation agreement.

¶43

The memorandum of settlement entered between the parties in M.C.No.6919/2023 before the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, is furnished along with a memo dated 25.2.2025. Clause 9

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:12059 CRL.P No. 10046 of 2023

¶46

of the said memorandum of settlement is extracted hereunder:

¶47

“9. In view of this agreement, the parties undertakes to co-operate to close/quash/withdraw in Crime No.232/2023 pending before the Womens Police Station, Basavanagudi which is allotted to 37^th ACMM, Bengaluru filed under Section 498A and other provisions, C.C.No.16794/2021 and C.C.No. 31683/2024 both pending on the file of VI ACMM, Bengaluru together with and Crl.Misc.201/2023 under MMTC-V, Bengaluru.”

¶48

It is also submitted that pursuant to memorandum of settlement, the Family Court has passed decree dated 13.1.2025 in MC No.6919/2023, thereby dissolving the marriage solemnized between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1.

¶49

7. Respondent No.2, who is present before the

¶50

Court submits that in view of the settlement, she has no objection to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners.

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12059 CRL.P No. 10046 of 2023

¶52

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and Others V. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held that 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:(i) to secure the ends of justice; or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It is further held 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.

¶53

9. In B.S.Joshi and others V. State of Haryana

¶54

and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the code to quash criminal proceedings, where dispute is of a private nature and the compromise is entered into between the parties.

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12059 CRL.P No. 10046 of 2023

¶56

As the parties have resolved the dispute and

¶57

settled the matter, no purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings pending against the petitioners. Hence, the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i. Application is allowed. Consequently, petition is allowed.

¶60

ii. The entire proceedings arising out

¶61

Cr.No.232/2023 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station against the petitioners under Section 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are quashed.

¶62

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶63

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
FIR Cr.No.232/2023 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, proceedings pending on the file of the XXXVII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru, sought to be quashed.¶¶32
XXXVII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru
Prior proceeding
Registration of FIR Cr.No.232/2023 at Basavanagudi Women Police Station against the petitioners, on the complaint of respondent No.2.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
Allegation in the complaint: after her marriage with accused No.1, the accused subjected respondent No.2 to physical and mental harassment in connection with dowry.¶¶40
Prior proceeding
Petitioner No.1 instituted divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against respondent No.2 in MC No.6919/2023 before the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court; the matter was referred to mediation, where the parties agreed to dissolve the marriage subject to the terms of the mediation agreement.¶¶42
Prior proceeding
Memorandum of settlement entered between the parties in M.C.No.6919/2023 furnished with a memo dated 25.2.2025; its Clause 9 records the parties' undertaking to co-operate to close/quash/withdraw Crime No.232/2023 (37th ACMM) together with C.C.No.16794/2021, C.C.No.31683/2024 (VI ACMM) and Crl.Misc.201/2023 (MMTC-V).¶¶43
Prior proceeding
Joint application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 signed by learned counsel for the petitioners and for respondent No.2, with affidavits of the parties, filed at the admission stage.¶¶41
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the memorandum of settlement, the Family Court passed decree dated 13.1.2025 in MC No.6919/2023 dissolving the marriage between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1.¶¶48
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2, present before the Court, submitted that in view of the settlement she has no objection to quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners.¶¶50

Mr. S. Vishal v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. S. Vishal v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puttaraju M.N. Vs the District Appropriate Authority

Sri Narayan Mahadevrao Biradar Vs M/S Padmavathi Enterprises

Mr Syed Imran Vs State of Karnataka

Kumar S R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Rajanna @ Rajappa H E Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt Rashmi Sarang @ Smt Rashmi Vs the Police Inspector