Sri Ganesha K v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2025CRL.P/10785/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compounding and quashing of 498-A IPC / Sections 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act proceedings on joint application under Sections 320(2) and 320(8) r/w 482 CrPC; amicable matrimonial settlement; mutual consent divorce M.C.No.2724/2025; permanent alimony Rs.9,00,000; wife's undertaking to withdraw complaint; charge sheet C.C.No.20247/2020, Yelahanka Police, Bengaluru; ends of justice; abuse of process; Section 528 BNSS; Karnataka High Court, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings in C.C.No.20247/2020 quashed in both criminal petitions pursuant to the joint compounding application under Sections 320(2) and 320(8) read with Section 482 CrPC; criminal petitions allowed. ¶¶62

Sri Ganesha K Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.20247/2020 against the petitioners for offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act should be compounded and quashed on the de facto complainant's joint application, following amicable settlement of the matrimonial dispute.

¶¶27

Court's answer

In view of the amicable settlement, the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, and the fact that the dispute arises out of matrimonial discord and is essentially private in nature, the case is fit to be compounded.

¶¶56

Ratio / Principle

The proceedings in C.C.No.20247/2020 registered against the petitioner-husband and his relatives for offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act deserve to be quashed in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of law.

¶¶60

Key takeaways

The joint application under Sections 320(2) and 320(8) read with Section 482 CrPC is taken on record, and consequently the proceedings pending in C.C.No.20247/2020 stand quashed in both petitions.ratio¶¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petitions (CRL.P No.10785/2025 c/w CRL.P No.1769/2022) under Section 482 CrPC (one filed under Section 528 BNSS) sought quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.20247/2020 (Yelahanka Police) against the petitioners — the husband/his relatives and related accused — for offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During pendency, the de facto complainant (respondent No.2, the wife) filed a joint application under Sections 320(2) and 320(8) read with Section 482 CrPC disclosing amicable resolution: the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent in M.C.No.2724/2025, she received Rs.9,00,000/- as permanent alimony, and she undertook to withdraw the complaint that culminated in the charge sheet. Holding the matrimonial dispute essentially private and fit to be compounded, the Court (Sachin Shankar Magadum J., 04-08-2025) quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.20247/2020 in both petitions to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law, and allowed the petitions.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:30008 CRL.P No. 10785 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1769 of 2022

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10785 OF 2025

¶8

C/W

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1769 OF 2022

¶10

IN CRL.P No. 10785/2025

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI. GANESHA k S/O. KEISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶13

SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶14

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SMT. KANTHAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶16

PETITONER NO.1 YO 3 ARE RESIDING AT KARNATAKA SERVICE STATION, OPP: GANESHA TEMPLE, SHANKAR ASHRAMA, LBS NAGAR, RMZ GALLERY, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064.

¶17

V.S.LEKHA, D/O. V.V.SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30008 CRL.P No. 10785 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1769 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

R/AT NO.173, NITTURU, NITTURU POST, VIRAJPETE, KODAGU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 571 219.

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI. SHIVANANDA REDDY R.V, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA YELAHANKA POLICE, REPTD.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶25

SMT. JYOTHI W/O. GANESH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT. NEAR YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, SHANKAR ASHRAMA, NEAR GANESH TEMPLE, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. N. DEVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶27

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.20247/2020 ON THE FIE OF THE 7TH A.C.J.M AT BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT.

¶28

IN CRL.P NO. 1769/2022

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

SRI. NAGARAJ S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.153, AMBEDKAR ALYOUT,

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30008 CRL.P No. 10785 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1769 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

BALAGERE, BELLANDURU, BENGALURU – 560 103.

¶34

SMT RADHAMMA @ RADHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, D/O.RAMAPPA, R/AT HIRANDAHALLI, VIRGONAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 049.

¶35

SRI RAVIKUMAR S/O CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.105, AMBEDKAR COLONY, JANATHAGONDANAHALLI, MUTHASANDRA, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT – 560 087.

¶36

SMT MANJULA W/O RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT JANATHAGONDANAHALLI, MUTHASANDRA, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT – 560 087.

¶37

SRI. H.K. NAGARAJ S/O KANAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.131, HIRNDAHALLI, VIRGONAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 049.

¶38

...PETITIONERS

¶39

(BY SRI. SHIVANANDA REDDY R.V, ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND:

¶41

STATE OF KARNATAKA YELAHANKA POLICE, REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR,

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30008 CRL.P No. 10785 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1769 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶45

SMT. JYOTHI W/O GANESH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NEAR YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, SHANKAR ASHRAMA, NEAR GANESH EMPLE, BENGALURU – 560 064.

¶46

...RESPONDENTS

¶47

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. N. DEVENDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶48

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEEDINGS AGAINST THESE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.20247/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE 37TH A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.498-A R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF DP ACT.

¶49

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶50

ORAL ORDER

¶51

The de facto complainant, who is arrayed as respondent No.2, has now filed a joint application under Sections 320(2) and 320(8) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the

¶52

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30008 CRL.P No. 10785 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1769 of 2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

said application, respondent No.2—wife of the petitioner has categorically admitted that the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved. More specifically, in M.C.No.2724/2025, the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by mutual consent, and respondent No.2 has received a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as permanent alimony. As part of the terms of settlement, respondent No.2 has undertaken to withdraw the complaint that gave rise to the registration of the criminal case, culminating in the filing of the charge sheet in C.C.No.20247/2020.

¶55

In light of the amicable settlement arrived at

¶56

between the parties, the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, and the fact that the dispute arises out of matrimonial discord and is essentially private in nature, this Court is of the considered view that the case is fit to be compounded. The proceedings in

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30008 CRL.P No. 10785 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1769 of 2022

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

C.C.No.20247/2020, registered against the petitioner–

¶60

husband and his relatives for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, deserve to be quashed in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of law.

¶61

The joint application is taken on record. Consequently, the proceedings pending C.C.No.20247/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, stand quashed in both petitions.

¶62

Accordingly, the criminal petitions are allowed.

¶63

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶64

HDK

Sri Ganesha K v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ganesha K 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

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

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

Kantharaj Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Suvarnamma Vs Smt. Parvathamma

Pradhan Priya Dass Vs State of Karnataka by

Manjappa T Vs State by Police Inspector