Mohammed Naseer R. Vs the State of Karnataka

ASMA KAUSAR R.K. W/O MOHAMMED NASEER R AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS NO.10TH CROSS, AMC ROAD HANIFIYA MASJID BACKSIDE KAUSHAL NAGAR, KG HALLI TANERY ROAD, BENGALURU-560078.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SYED KAHLEEL PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶26

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.27912/2022 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.103/2022 FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 504 OF IPC AND SEC.4 OF DP ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXXII ACJM COURT BENGLAURU

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

A Joint Affidavit is filed by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 reporting settlement between petitioner No.1 - husband and respondent No.2 - wife.

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:34047 CRL.P No. 10416 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

2. This petition is filed by the husband and his family members seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.27912/2022, arising out of Crime No.103/2022, which is pending before the Court of the XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶35

3. Today, respondent No.2 – the defacto complainant is present before this Court. It is not in dispute that the parties had approached the Mediation Centre and arrived at a settlement and further, the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved. However, the terms of settlement have not been incorporated in the joint affidavit, nor is a copy of the settlement placed on record.

¶36

4. Be that as it may, respondent No.2 – wife, who is personally present before this Court, has acknowledged that her marriage with petitioner No.1 has been dissolved by a decree of the Family Court. She further confirms that

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34047 CRL.P No. 10416 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

in terms of settlement, the husband has paid her a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- by way of demand draft and she has received the said amount towards full and final settlement of her claims.

¶40

5. Recording her statement and taking note of the fact that the parties have voluntarily resolved their matrimonial dispute before the Family Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that though the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC is ordinarily non-compoundable, having regard to the nature of dispute, which is essentially matrimonial in character between husband, wife and in-laws and since no heinous or grave offence is alleged, the continuation of proceedings would only result in unnecessary harassment to both sides.

¶41

6. In order to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34047 CRL.P No. 10416 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.

¶45

The entire proceedings in C.C.No.27912/2022 arising

¶46

out of Crime No.103/2022 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the file of the XXXII ACJM Court, Bengaluru, stand quashed insofar as the present petitioners are concerned.

¶47

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶48

NBM

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Mohammed Naseer R. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Naseer 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

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka by

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka by

Ms.Bhavya P.S. Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Sindhu Bellavi T N., Vs Mr. Niranjan G E.

Sri. Gopalakrishna K Vs M/S Preethi Travels Pvt. Ltd.

Madhu Vs the Karnataka State