Quashed¶45

Kantharaj v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2025CRL.P/10547/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.; NC: 2025:KHC:30119), CRL.P No. 10547 of 2025, decided 01-08-2025: proceedings in C.C.No.4771/2019 (Crime No.48/2019) under Ss.323, 504, 506, 498(A), 109 r/w 34 IPC before JMFC, Devanahalli, quashed on joint memo of amicable settlement between Kantharaj (husband/petitioner) and Praneetha (wife/respondent No.2); Rs.9,00,000/- total settlement, Rs.4,00,000/- paid by DD, balance Rs.5,00,000/- linked to M.C.No.54/2022 and Criminal Appeal No.26/2024; compounding permitted under S.320 Cr.P.C. read with S.482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings in C.C.No.4771/2019, arising out of Crime No.48/2019, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District, quashed in view of the settlement; joint memo taken on record. ¶45

Kantharaj Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.4771/2019 against the petitioners should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioner/husband and respondent No.2/wife. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

In view of the amicable settlement, withdrawal of allegations by the complainant, and the matrimonial nature of the dispute, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings; the matter being private in nature, continuance of prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

This is a fit case for exercising powers under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to permit the parties to compound the offences and to bring a quietus to the entire dispute.

¶39

Key takeaways

The joint memo is taken on record and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.4771/2019, arising out of Crime No.48/2019, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Devanahalli, for offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC, stand quashed in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. (S.528 BNSS) — quashing of matrimonial-dispute criminal case on joint memo of settlement — petitioner/husband and respondent No.2/wife amicably resolved all disputes; wife agreed to give consent for divorce and to withdraw all allegations leading to Crime No.48/2019 upon payment of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rs.4,00,000/- already paid by demand draft; balance Rs.5,00,000/- payable at the time of obtaining orders in M.C.No.54/2022 and Criminal Appeal No.26/2024) — dispute being private in nature, continuance of prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law — powers under S.320 Cr.P.C. read with S.482 Cr.P.C. exercised to permit compounding — entire proceedings in C.C.No.4771/2019 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A read with Section 34 IPC quashed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30119 CRL.P No. 10547 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10547 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KANTHARAJ S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶9

LAXMAMMA W/O RAMKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶10

NANDINI W/O RAJAREDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶11

RAJAREDDY @ RAJASHEKARA REDDY S/O GANGA REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

RAMU @ RAM REDDY S/O GANGA REDDY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDING AT BALEPURA VILLAGE CHANNANARAYANAPATANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 135.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. VISHNUMURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:30119 CRL.P No. 10547 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANNANARAYANAPATNA P.S. BANGALORE RURAL R/P BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE.-01

¶22

PRANEETHA W/O KANTRAJ AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT BALEPURA VILLAGE CHANNNARAYANAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BNAGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 135.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI .K, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. VASANTHALAKSHMI .H.V., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.4771/2019, AGAINST THEM FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 504, 506, 498(A), 109 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:30119 CRL.P No. 10547 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

A joint memo has been filed by the petitioner/husband and respondent No.2/wife, indicating that the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes. As per the terms of settlement, the respondent No.2/wife has agreed to give her consent for divorce, upon the petitioner/husband paying a total sum of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only) towards full and final settlement of all claims.

¶33

It is brought to the notice of this Court that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- has already been paid to the respondent No.2 by way of demand draft, and the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is agreed to be paid at the time of obtaining orders in M.C.No.54/2022 and Criminal Appeal No.26/2024, which are also filed between the parties.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30119 CRL.P No. 10547 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

In view of the amicable settlement and in

¶37

light of the fact that respondent No.2/complainant has agreed to withdraw all allegations which led to the registration of Crime No.48/2019, and considering the fact that the dispute arises out of a matrimonial discord, which has now been resolved, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings. The matter being private in nature, continuance of prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶38

This is therefore a fit case for exercising

¶39

powers under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to permit the parties to compound the offences and to bring a quietus to the entire dispute.

¶40

Accordingly, the joint memo is taken on

¶41

record. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.4771/2019, arising out of Crime No.48/2019, pending on the file

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:30119 CRL.P No. 10547 of 2025

¶43

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC, are hereby quashed in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶46

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶47

ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 56

Kantharaj v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kantharaj v. 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

Sri Vidyadhara N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N G Prasanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Nitendra Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Parvath. P. a. Vs the State by Ponnampet Police Station

Dr.M.C Mahesh Kumar Vs Dr.M. Sharada

Ashhar Ahamed @ Jahid Vs the State of Karnataka