Mr Jose Thomas Vs the State of Karnataka

MR. JOSE THOMAS S/O V.J. THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.271, GROUND FLOOR, ANUGRAHA NILAYA, WINN FIELD GARDEN, JAKKURU, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 077.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. RAJITHA T.O., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU. SPP,

¶16

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA-560 001.

¶17

PILLI VEENA W/O JOSE THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT: D. 103, MIMS RESIDENCY, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARA SAMPIGEHALLI, BANGALORE-560 064.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. R.B. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41215 CRL.P No. 10717 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO (I) QUASH THE FIR FILED THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE (SAMPIGEHALLI P S) VIDE FIR NO.109/2021 ON 19.05.2021 WHICH IS PENDING FOR THE BEFORE TRIAL COURT; (II) QUASH THE PENDING TRIAL IN CC.NO.17089/2021 BEFORE XLI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498 A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF THE DP ACT REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner/accused has preferred this petition to quash the FIR No.109/2021 of Sampigehalli Police Station and the pending trial in C.C.No.17089/2021 on the file of the Court of XLI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶27

Learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/defacto complainant submitted that the matter arises out of

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41215 CRL.P No. 10717 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

matrimonial dispute wherein, the parties have filed a memorandum of settlement before the Family Court in M.C.No.4398/2021 settling the matter and in the said memorandum of settlement, respondent No.2 has agreed to close the proceedings initiated by her against the petitioner, now pending before the trial Court in C.C.No.17089/2021.

¶31

The learned counsel for petitioner has filed a

¶32

memo dated 10.09.2025 which reads as under:

¶33

“The Counsel for the Petitioner in the above matter respectfully begs to submits that, the Petitioner had filed a Divorce Petition under section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 before the Hon'ble Vth Addl. Principal Family Court at Bangalore which was numbered as M.C.No.4398/2021 and subsequently settled through mediation before the mediation Centre, Family Court. As per the settlement terms entered in the mediation the Respondent No.2 had agreed for the divorce and further agreed that she doesn't have any claim for the Petitioner. She had further agreed that she will cooperate in filing the quashing petition as there is no provision for withdrawal of the Complaint under

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41215 CRL.P No. 10717 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

and has agreed to participate in the quashing petition and provide the no objection for quashing the aforesaid proceedings in the said CC 17089/2021. The Certified Copy of the entire order sheet along with the Settlement Agreement executed in MC No.4398/2021 is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-C. The Vakalath of Respondent No.2 along with the No Objection Affidavit is filed herewith. Kindly the same may be taken on record in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶37

The memorandum of settlement filed before the

¶38

V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru in M.C.No.4398/2021 is filed along with the memo. Para No.9 of the said memorandum of settlement is extracted hereunder:

¶39

“9. In view of this settlement the respondent has agreed to co-operate in closing/ quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.17089/2021 pending in Court Hall No.41, MMTC, Bengaluru filed against the petitioner, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506 of IPC R/W Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act.”

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41215 CRL.P No. 10717 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

5. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v.

¶43

Babita Raghuvanshi and another reported in 2013(2) Crimes 90(SC), it is held by the Apex Court 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, even if the offences are non-compoundable and if it is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably without any pressure.’

¶44

In the above facts and circumstances of the

¶45

case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the present criminal proceeding initiated by respondent No.2 against the petitioner, which arise out of matrimonial dispute is purely private in nature. In view of the amicable settlement between the parties, no purpose will be served in continuing the same. The criminal proceedings are deserved to be quashed for the purpose of securing the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following:

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41215 CRL.P No. 10717 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

ORDER

¶49

Petition is allowed.

¶50

The entire proceedings pending in

¶51

C.C.No.17089/2021 on the file of the Court of XLI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, arising out of Crime No.109/2021 of Sampigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru City are quashed.

¶52

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

HB

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 102

Mr Jose Thomas v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Jose Thomas 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Manjunatha, Vs State of Karnataka

Santhosh Vs State of Karnataka

Palguna Vs K R Sudha

Sri Dyamanna D Vs Sri Narasimhamurthy C

Kunna Sunna Vs State of Karnataka

Poonaram Vs State of Karnataka