Allowed¶41

Sri.Simon Devaraj v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2025CRL.P/1165/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court; Hemant Chandangoudar J.; CRL.P No. 1165 of 2025 (482 Cr.PC / 528 BNSS); quashing of FIR/proceedings; Sections 498A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act; cognizable and non-compoundable offences quashed on amicable settlement; joint memo; mutual divorce; permanent alimony Rs.5 lakh; demand draft; withdrawal of allegations; probability of conviction remote and bleak; abuse of process of law; C.C. No. 55313/2022; 29th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Mayohall Bengaluru; HAL Police Station; Family Court M.C.No.243/2022; decision dated 15-04-2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 55313/2022 pending on the file of the 29th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Mayohall, Bengaluru. ¶41

Sri.Simon Devaraj Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 55313/2022 pending on the file of the 29th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Mayohall, Bengaluru.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 55313/2022 (offences under Sections 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act) should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, notwithstanding that the alleged offences are cognizable and non-compoundable.

¶34

Court's answer

Where the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, the marriage stands dissolved mutually, the agreed alimony has been paid, and respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw all allegations and has no objection to quashing, it would be a futile exercise to subject the petitioners-accused to trial since the probability of their conviction is remote and bleak.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

In view of the amicable settlement, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law; accordingly the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.55313/2022 are quashed, even though the offences alleged are cognizable and non-compoundable.

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.PC (filed under S.528 BNSS) by accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 - the husband and sisters-in-law of the defacto-complainant - charge-sheeted in C.C. No. 55313/2022 before the 29th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Mayohall, Bengaluru, for offences under S.498A IPC and S.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Parties appeared with counsel and filed a joint memo recording an amicable settlement: mutual dissolution of the marriage; Rs.5,00,000 permanent alimony from accused No.1 (Rs.2,50,000 already paid before the Family Court in M.C.No.243/2022 and the balance Rs.2,50,000 paid by demand draft before the High Court, acknowledged subject to realisation); respondent No.2 agreed to withdraw all allegations and raised no objection to quashing. Although the offences are cognizable and non-compoundable, the Court held that subjecting the accused to trial would be futile since the probability of conviction is remote and bleak, and that continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. Criminal petition allowed; entire proceedings in C.C. No. 55313/2022 quashed. (Hemant Chandangoudar, J.; dated 15 April 2025.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:15696 CRL.P No. 1165 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1165 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /

¶7

528(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.SIMON DEVARAJ S/O LATE ARUN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NO-862, 2^ND G CROSS, 8^TH A MAIN ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK, 3^RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, NEAR NETHAJI GROUND, BENGALURU- 560 079.

¶10

SMT. SHEETAL KIRAN, W/O KIRAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO-G.T. STREET, ADUGODI BENGALURU-560 030.

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. DEENA SHILPA D/O LATE ARUN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO-176/2, NARASHIMHA RAJU HOUSE ROAD, MANGAMMANAPALYA, MADIWALA, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 068.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. G. RAGHU, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HAL POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:15696 CRL.P No. 1165 of 2025

¶19

REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED SPP, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

SMT. JHANSI RANI, W/O SRI. SIMON DEVARAJ, D/O PALANI VELU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NO-12, KOSHY'S COTTAGE, 27^TH MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, V.G.S. LAYOUT, EJIPURA, BANGALORE-560 047.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. JAGANATH C.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO. 55313/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 29^TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MAYOHALL, AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioners-accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 who have been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are before this Court seeking relief.

¶28

The prosecution alleges that, accused No.1 husband, accused Nos.3 and 4 sisters-in-laws of the defacto

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:15696 CRL.P No. 1165 of 2025

¶31

complainant subjected her to cruelty both, mentally and physically and also demanded to bring money from her parental home.

¶32

The parties are present before this Court along with their respective counsels and have filed a joint memo stating that they have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves and in terms of the settlement, the marriage of accused No.1 with the defacto-complainant-respondent No.2 has been dissolved mutually. Accused No.1 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakh towards permanent alimony, out of which, Rs.2,50,000/- was already paid before the Family Court in M.C.No.243/2022 and balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is paid by way of demand draft before this Court and the receipt of which is acknowledged by the defacto-complainant who is present before Court subject to realisation. The respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw all the allegations made against the petitioners and has no objections for quashing the impugned proceedings.

¶33

The Joint memo is placed on record.

¶34

Although the offences alleged are cognizable and non-compoundable, however, having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves, and the respondent No.2 having agreed to withdraw all the allegations made by her, it would be futile exercise if the petitioners -accused are subjected to trial, since the probability of their conviction is remote and bleak in view of the

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:15696 CRL.P No. 1165 of 2025

¶37

settlement. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of law.

¶38

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶41

ii) The impugned proceeding in C.C.No.55313/2022 pending on the file of the 29^th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Mayohall, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶44

HR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1

Sri.Simon Devaraj v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Simon Devaraj 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

Mr. Denzil Jaison Fersnandes Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shivappa @ Ratnapuri Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kenja Ragghuram Tantri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Rasheed Saheb, Vs State by Mangaluru Women Police Station

Hussainabba @ Hussain @ Suhel @ Ustad Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Vishwa Santhosha Bharathi Guruji Vs State of Karnataka