Mr. Sathish Kumar Shanmugam Vs State of Karnataka

MR. SATHISH KUMAR SHANMUGAM, S/O LATE SHANMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT SKY DEUTSCHLAND FERNSEHEN GMBH AND AMP. CO KG MEDIENALLEE, 26, UNTER FOEHRING, GERMANY - 85774.

¶12

PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT 3/33, ANANDA BABU STREET, JP BUILDERS COLONY, GOPALAPURAM, AKNGEYANALLUR , GANDHINAGAR, VELLORE, TAMIL NADU - 632 006

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SMT. AYANTIKA MONDAL, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN PS, BENGALURU - 560 002, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:11437 CRL.P No. 11136 of 2022

¶19

MRS. SHILPA KOMAL M.G D/O GOVINDAN M AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 186, 7TH CROSS, SECOND STAGE K.H RANGANATH COLONY, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 026.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL. HCGP FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 25.03.2022 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CASE BEARING C.C.NO.14608/2022 OFFENCE U/S.498-A OF IPC AND SEC,.4 OF DP ACT PENDING BEFORE THE XXXVII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU AND ALLOW COSTS TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner is seeking to quash registration of the FIR in Crime No.245/2021 at Basavanagudi Women Police Station, Bangalore City and the proceedings in CC.No.14608/2022 before the XXXVII Additional Chief

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:11437 CRL.P No. 11136 of 2022

¶29

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, which is now transferred and pending before XXIV ACMM, Bengaluru.

¶30

The aforementioned crime was registered on a complaint lodged by respondent No.2 alleging offences punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶31

An affidavit is filed by respondent No.2/defacto complainant wherein, it is stated that the parties have filed a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Hon'ble II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court in MC.No.1628/2025 and in the said matter, they have moved an application for the waiver of cooling period of six months and the Hon'ble Court has allowed the same and passed an order on 17.03.2025 and the matter was referred for mediation, wherein they have amicably resolved the dispute.

¶32

Memo and the affidavit of respondent No.2 is placed on record.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:11437 CRL.P No. 11136 of 2022

¶35

It is further stated that by virtue of the final settlement agreement drawn during the mediation, the parties have agreed for compromise in CC.No.14608/2022 pending before the learned XXIV ACCM, Bengaluru.

¶36

It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that as an interim measure, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 29.10.2022, while allowing the application filed by the petitioner permitting him to travel abroad, directed him to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) as per which, he has furnished the said bank guarantee.

¶37

Petitioner as well as respondent No.2 are present before the Court. They are identified by the learned counsel for petitioner. Respondent No.2 submits that petitioner and herself have reached an amicable settlement and agreed to compromise the case, to save their future and career and to promote good relationship. She submits that she has no objection to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11437 CRL.P No. 11136 of 2022

¶39

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and

¶40

Others V. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held that when the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis, petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be:(i) to secure the ends of justice; or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. Further, criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

¶41

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

¶42

and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the code to quash criminal proceedings, where dispute is of a private nature and the compromise is entered into between the parties.

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11437 CRL.P No. 11136 of 2022

¶44

In the light of the amicable settlement arrived between the parties, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise and no purpose will be served. Hence, to meet the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. Hence, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. Petition is allowed .

¶47

ii. The entire proceeding in CC.No.14608/2022 pending before the XXIV ACCM, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.245/2021 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station is quashed.

¶48

iii. In view of quashing of the entire proceedings, the order dated 29.10.2022, passed by the learned Magistrate directing the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee is hereby set-aside.

¶49

iv. I.A.No.1/2022 stands disposed of .

¶50

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

PK

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT: BHK

Mr. Sathish Kumar Shanmugam v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sathish Kumar Shanmugam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umashankar. M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Yogesh Kumar v @ Handi Vs the State of Karnataka

Rani Nalwa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. O R Kalpana Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Pawan Kumar T S Vs Smt Rashmi M

Muniraju Reddy Vs State of Karnataka