Pavan Kumar Nandavaram S/O Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

VANISREE D/O. SRINIVAS, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF D. NO.1/108, 7TH WARD, PANDURANGA COLONY, A. S. GUDI, HOSAPETE, VIJAYANAGARA DIST-583203.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI ANWAR BASHA B., ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8384 CRL.P No. 102740 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH RURAL P. S. HOSAPETE, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580001.

¶22

SMT. POOJA D. W/O. PAVAN KUMAR NANDAVARAM, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. ARE RESIDENT OF D.NO. 1/108, 7TH WARD, PANDURANGA COLONY, A. S. GUDI, HOSAPETE, VIJAYANAGARA DIST-583203.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; SHRI PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADV. FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR AND CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.288/2022 (IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.96/2021 OF HOSAPETE RURAL PS) PENDING BEFORE THE IIND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSAPETE FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 323, 504, 506 R/W. 34 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8384 CRL.P No. 102740 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶33

This petition is filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.” for short) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS” for short) to quash the complaint, FIR, charge sheet and entire proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.288/2022 pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2 submit that the matter is settled between the parties in M.C.No.133/2023 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, which was disposed off on 15.12.2023. The Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8384 CRL.P No. 102740 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Hosapete in its judgment at paragraph No.9, made observation as under:

¶39

“9. It also reflected in the evidence petitioners that, due to differences of opinion, the marital relationship of petitioners was not cordial and has been strained. The efforts of elders to reunite the petitioners all went in vain. The petitioners have been living separately from June-2021 and there is no possibility of reunion the petitioners. It is evident from the evidence of the petitioners that, as per the elders of both petitioners, petitioner No.1 agreed that he has to pay Rs.9,00,000/ as life time alimony to the petitioner No.2 for which she also agreed and out of said amount petitioner No.1 paid Rs.4,50,000/ through D.D No.983471 dated 09.11.2023 of State Bank of India, Hosapete Branch drawn in the petitioner No.1, and on 08.12.2023 petitioner No.1 issued another D.D No.983067 dated 07.12.2023 of State Bank of India, Hosapete Branch, in the name of petitioner No.1 towards balance life time alimony. Further both have agreed that, they will not claim anything in the movable or immovable properties and there is nobodies force or coercion or threat in filing the present petition. Further, the petitioner No.1 filed petition for maintenance and Criminal case before the Family Court, Ballari, for maintenance in Cri.M.C No.233/2022 and also another case in C.C No.288/2022 on the file of the 2^nd Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosapete, and the petitioner No.1 undertake to withdraw the same before closing the present case

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8384 CRL.P No. 102740 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

and she further undertaken to not to claim any maintenance or arrears of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Ballari. All these facts sufficiently shows that there is no possibility of reunion or leading a marital life together by the petitioners.”

¶43

In view of the compromise entered into between

¶44

the parties in M.C.No.133/2022, the de-facto complainant is not willing to continue marital life with petitioner – accused No.1 and their marital relationship has been irretrievably broken down. Both the petitioners and the de-facto complainant have settled their dispute and have decided to take divorce by mutual consent by their own will and wish.

¶45

In M.C.No.133/2022, the de-facto complainant has agreed to withdraw all criminal cases, including the present case in C.C.No.288/2022 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete. Therefore, the continuation of criminal cases against the petitioners is clearly abuse of process of law and hence the petition is liable to be disposed off.

¶46

The entire proceedings in C.C.No.288/2022 on

¶47

the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete is

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8384 CRL.P No. 102740 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

requires to be quashed insofar as petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 4 are concerned. Since the dispute has been resolved between the parties, if the prosecution is continued, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. Accordingly,

¶51

this Court proceed to pass the following :

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The criminal petition is hereby allowed.

¶54

(ii) The entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.288/2022 pending on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JFMC, Hosapete for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC are hereby quashed.

¶55

In view of disposal of main petition, pending applications

¶56

if any, stands disposed off.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶59

EM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Pavan Kumar Nandavaram S/O Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavan Kumar Nandavaram S/O Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Javed S/O. Allabaksh Nadaf Vs the State of Karnataka

Vasudev Yashwant Shanbhag Vs Parameshwari Devu Mukri

Reddy Srinivas S/O Reddy Vera Raju Vs State through Police Officer

Sri. N. Channabasavana Gouda S/O Doddanagowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Surendra Gundu Ugare Vs the State of Karnataka

Raju S/O Vilas Sonakamble Vs the State of Karnataka