Mr. B. Prashanth Raj Vs State by Banaswadi Police Station Bangalore

MRS. SONY CHRISTINA W/O MR. B.PRASHANTH RAJ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO.153, 1^ST FLOOR, OPP. HLRC, 6^TH CROSS, OMKARIA NILAYA, BROKE BOND, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560 066. OR ALSO RESIDING AT NO.2, 3^RD CROSS, BOOKE BOND, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560 066.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR M.V., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. AMBRUSE LEO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO: (A) ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION; (B) QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.53110/2022 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU, FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 498(A) R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC FILED BY THE BANASWADI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

This petition is preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.53110/2022 pending on the file of the Court of XI

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:46402 CRL.P No. 11036 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall,

¶34

Bengaluru.

¶35

Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint with Banaswadi Police, based on which Crime No.598/2021 was registered at Banaswadi Police Station against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498A

¶36

r/w 34 of IPC. On completion of investigation,

¶37

chargesheet is filed.

¶38

A joint affidavit is filed signed by the

¶39

petitioners, respondent No.2/defacto complainant and the learned counsel representing the parties. It is stated that the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes through mediation before the Family Court, Bengaluru, resulting in memorandum of settlement dated 07.02.2023 under 89 CPC r/w Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation Rules) 2005, filed in

¶40

M.C.No.4719/2021. Further, consequent to the said settlement, a decree of divorce by mutual consent has

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46402 CRL.P No. 11036 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

been passed by the Family Court, Bengaluru on 07.03.2023.

¶44

Petitioners and respondent No.2 are present before the Court. Respondent No.2/defacto complainant confirms that the matter has been settled and submits that she has no objection to quash the proceedings now pending against the petitioners.

¶45

The matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute, wherein the parties have entered into a settlement before the Family Court, Bengaluru, pursuant to the settlement taken place before the Mediation Centre.

¶46

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another reported in 2013(2) Crimes 90(SC), has held 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 of matrimonial disputes, particularly,

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:46402 CRL.P No. 11036 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the

¶51

offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that, the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code, would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR.’

¶52

In B.S.Joshi and others V. State of Haryana

¶53

and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C., would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶54

In light of the above, to secure the ends of justice, it is just and proper to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. Accordingly, the following:

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:46402 CRL.P No. 11036 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

ORDER

¶59

Petition is allowed.

¶60

The entire proceedings in C.C.No.53110/2022

¶61

pending on the file of the Court of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC are quashed.

¶62

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶63

HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Mr. B. Prashanth Raj v. State by Banaswadi Police Station Bangalore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. B. Prashanth Raj v. State by Banaswadi Police Station Bangalore

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 Manjunath H N @ Koli Manja Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Santhosh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Kriplani M Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Abhijit Bhattacharya Vs State of Karnataka by Varthur Police

D Sudharshan Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Rajanna B D Vs the State of Karnataka