Shashivardhan M Vs the State of Karnataka

SMT. MAHALYA W/O. RAVI KIRAN. M, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 82,1, HANUMANTHAPURA, JARABNDAHALLI POST, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA-561 211.

¶14

AHALYA D/O. MUNIRAJU. M, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 62, NAGADASANAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, RAJANUKUNTE POST,

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:53637 CRL.P No. 10168 of 2025

HC-KAR

BENGALURU-560 064.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. A. S. KULKARNI.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TUMAKURU WOMEN POLICE STATION, TUMKURU-572 103. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶22

SMT. KAVYA. K. S. W/O. SHASHIVARDHAN. M, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT KADAGUJJANAHALLI VILLAGE, URDIGERE HOBALI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU-572 140.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1 SMT. ZYNUB BEGUM, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONERS - ACCUSED NOs1 TO 4 IN TUMAKURU WOMEN P.S. IN CR.NO.51/2025, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A),323,504 OF IPC, U/S 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT, ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:53637 CRL.P No. 10168 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR registered at

¶33

Tumakuru Women Police Station in Crime No.51/2025, for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 325, 504 of

¶34

IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶35

Respondent No.2 set the law in motion and based on her complaint, aforementioned case was registered against the petitioners.

¶36

The matter arises out of matrimonial dispute, wherein, it is now submitted that the parties have resolved all the dispute and respondent No.2 is not interested in proceeding with the complaint any further.

¶37

It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have entered into a memorandum of settlement and on that basis, the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru has passed a decree dissolving their marriage in M.C.No.4667/2025.

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53637 CRL.P No. 10168 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Application is filed under Section 528 of the

¶41

BNSS, 2023, along with the joint affidavit of the parties. Joint affidavit is placed on record.

¶42

The memorandum of settlement is enclosed

¶43

with the application. Para 6 is extracted hereunder:-

¶44

"6. In view of the above settlement arrived between the parties the 2^nd petitioner has agreed to co-operate with the 1^st petitioner for the closure/quashing of C.C.No.132/2025 (crime No.51) filed under Section 498A of IPC which is pending before II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur and 1^st petitioner has filed a Crl. Appeal No.10168/2025 for quashing before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.

¶45

7. Both the petitioners have no claims of whatsoever nature against each other either past, present or future either movable or immovable property."

¶46

Petitioners and respondent No.2 are present

¶47

before the Court. They submitted that the matter has been settled. Respondent No.2 submits that in view of the settlement, she has no objection to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:53637 CRL.P No. 10168 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶52

Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita

¶53

Raghuvanshi and another reported in 2013(2) Crimes 90(SC), has held that ‘the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., are wide and unfettered. It is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that, the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code, would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR.’

¶54

The Hon'ble Apex Court in NARIDER SINGH

¶55

AND OTHERS 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 to: i)

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53637 CRL.P No. 10168 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

secure ends of justice, or ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. Those criminal cases having overwhelming and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transaction or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family dispute should be quashed when parties have resolved their entire dispute among themselves.

¶59

In the above facts and circumstances, and in light of the above judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, and to bring quietus to the entire dispute, it is appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. Accordingly, the following:-

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) Application is allowed, consequently, petition is

¶62

allowed .

¶63

ii) The FIR in Crime No.51/2025 of Tumakuru

¶64

Women Police Station, and the consequential proceeding

¶65