Sri Rangaswamy R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2025CRL.P/10372/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC; CRL.P No.10372 of 2023; Crime No.34/2023; Mysuru Women Police Station; IPC Sections 417, 420, 354(D), 504, 506, 114 read with 34; failed love affair between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2; parties since married to other persons; complainant not interested in pursuing prosecution; HCGP submission of no incriminating material on investigation; complaint product of ill will subsequently resolved; Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) & CJM Court, Periyapatna, Mysuru District; Justice M.I. Arun; decision dated 13 October 2025; Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the FIR/proceedings in Crime No.34/2023 registered against the petitioners before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) & CJM Court, Periyapatna, Mysuru District. ¶¶56

Sri Rangaswamy R Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the FIR/proceedings in Crime No.34/2023 registered against the petitioners before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) & CJM Court, Periyapatna, Mysuru District.

¶¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 23.08.2023 registered in Crime No.34/2023 against the petitioners for alleged offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 354(D), 504, 506 and 114 read with 34 of IPC ought to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶¶37

Court's answer

The complaint against the petitioners was the product of ill will between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, which has been resolved subsequently and both are living happily.

¶¶50

Ratio / Principle

No incriminating material has been found against the petitioners in the investigation conducted so far.

¶¶50

Key takeaways

Quashing the FIR registered against the petitioners would help them lead a proper and respectable life in society, whereas continuing the proceedings would not serve any purpose.ratio¶¶50
The criminal petition is hereby allowed.ratio¶¶52
The proceedings in Crime No.34/2023 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) & CJM Court, Periyapatna, Mysuru District, are quashed as against the petitioners.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (M.I. Arun, J.), by order dated 13.10.2025, allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashed the FIR dated 23.08.2023 in Crime No.34/2023 (Sections 417, 420, 354(D), 504, 506 and 114 read with 34 of IPC, Mysuru Women Police Station) registered against eight petitioners. The complaint arose out of a failed relationship between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2; both have since married other persons, the ill will stands resolved, respondent No.2 conveyed she does not wish to pursue the case, and the learned HCGP stated on instructions that the investigation so far has revealed no incriminating material against the petitioners. The Court held that quashing the FIR would enable the petitioners to lead a proper and respectable life in society, whereas continuing the proceedings would serve no purpose.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40619 CRL.P No. 10372 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10372 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI RANGASWAMY R S/O RAJEGOWDA,

¶11

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶12

SRI. RAJEGOWDA S/O LATE RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. KAMAKSHI W/O RAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶15

SMT. SAVITHA W/O DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶16

SRI. DEVARAJU S/O LOKESH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶17

PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 ARE R/AT ALANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40619 CRL.P No. 10372 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

KASABA HOBLI,

¶21

PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571 107.

¶22

SMT. RENUKA W/O ASHOKA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶23

SRI. ASHOKA S/O LATE PUTALIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶24

PETITIONERS 6 AND 7 ARE R/AT THONDALU VILLAGE, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶25

SRI. SOMASHEKARA S/O KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT DODDAHARAVE VILLAGE, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107.

¶26

…PETITIONERS

¶27

(BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P., ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MYSURU WOMEN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶30

ANU A.S. D/O SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:40619 CRL.P No. 10372 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

R/AT ALANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, PIRIYAPATTANA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R.1; SMT. PARINEETA S. CHANAL, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.)

¶37

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 23.08.2023 REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.34/2023 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 417, 420, 354(D), 504, 506 AND 114 READ WITH 34 OF IPC, REGISTERED BY THE MYSURU WOMEN POLICE STATION, MYSURU, ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CJM COURT, PERIYAPATNA, MYSURU, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶38

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:40619 CRL.P No. 10372 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had a relationship with each other. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had a love affair. However, for certain reasons, they fell apart. This resulted in respondent no.2 making a complaint against petitioner no.1 and other petitioners, who happened to be his relatives and friends, resulting in FIR being registered in Crime No.34/2023, which is pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) & CJM Court, Periyapatna, Mysuru District. The main allegation in the complaint is that petitioner no.1 cheated respondent no.2 by not marrying her. It is submitted that presently both petitioner No.1 as well as respondent No.2 are happily married to some other persons. It is also submitted by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that on account of respondent No.2 feeling betrayed by petitioner No.1, out of vengeance, she filed the present complaint and she is not interested in pursuing the case any more.

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40619 CRL.P No. 10372 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Learned HCGP for respondent No.1, upon

¶48

instructions, submits that the investigation done so far does not reveal any incriminating material against the petitioners herein and it appears respondent No.2 has filed

¶49

the complaint solely because she felt betrayed by petitioner No.1.

¶50

Admittedly, the complaint is the product of ill will between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, which has been resolved subsequently and both are living happily. Further, as submitted by the learned HCGP, no incriminating material has been found against the petitioners. Under the circumstances, in my opinion, quashing the FIR registered against the petitioners would only help them to lead a proper and respectable life in the society whereas continuing the same would not serve any purpose. Hence, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) The criminal petition is hereby allowed;

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:40619 CRL.P No. 10372 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

(ii) The proceedings in Crime No.34/2023 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) & CJM Court, Periyapatna, Mysuru District, as against the petitioners herein is hereby quashed.

¶57

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶58

hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Sri Rangaswamy R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rangaswamy R 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

S M Ramamurthy Vs State by Central Bureau

Shri. Ravindra Singh Singhvi Vs Union of India

Sri. Arun Kumar. C Vs Smt. Gayathri Madhava

Sri Srinivasa M, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Muddegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Hanumantharaju Vs State by Ramanagara Rural Police Station