Allowed¶56

Sri. Muddegowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2025CRL.P/12913/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), Justice M.I. Arun, 13-10-2025, CRL.P No. 12913 of 2023: FIR Crime No.387/2023 of Tavarekere Police Station (Ss.504, 392, 448, 323, 506(B) IPC) pending before CJM Bengaluru Rural District quashed under S.482 CrPC; matrimonial dispute between wife-petitioner No.2 and husband-complainant respondent No.2 compromised, divorce granted; complainant not interested in prosecuting; allegations described as out of vengeance; HCGP reported no incriminating evidence and no objection; no heinous crime alleged; pending IAs disposed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings/FIR in Crime No.387/2023 of Tavarekere Police Station, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, against all six petitioners; pending interlocutory applications, if any, disposed of. ¶56

Sri. Muddegowda Vs State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings pursuant to FIR in Crime No.387/2023 of Tavarekere Police Station, registered on the private complaint of respondent No.2 against the petitioners, ought to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in view of the compromise between the parties and the absence of incriminating material.

¶49

Court's answer

Where criminal proceedings arise out of a marital conflict that has since been compromised, no heinous crime is made out against the accused as alleged, and the State reports that investigation has revealed no incriminating material, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings, as quashing will help the parties lead their lives respectfully and with peace of mind.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

The criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated by way of Crime No.387/2023 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, against the petitioners are quashed; pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allowed. FIR in Crime No.387/2023 of Tavarekere Police Station — offences punishable under Sections 504, 392, 448, 323 and 506(B) IPC, registered on a private complaint by respondent No.2 (husband) against petitioner No.2 (wife) and five relatives — pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, quashed under Section 482 CrPC. The proceedings stemmed from matrimonial discord between petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2; the parties subsequently compromised, divorce was granted, and the wife withdrew her cases. Before the Court, the complainant stated he was not interested in prosecuting; counsel jointly submitted the allegations were more out of vengeance than out of reality; and the learned HCGP, upon instructions, reported that investigation conducted so far revealed no incriminating evidence and raised no objection to quashing. Holding that no heinous crime was alleged and that quashing would enable the parties to lead their lives respectfully and with peace of mind, the Court (M.I. Arun, J.) allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings; pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40623 CRL.P No. 12913 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12913 OF 2023

¶8

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. MUDDEGOWDA S/O LATE HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. VARDENAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶11

KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. SUJATHA, W/O RANGASWAMY K AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT NO.174, K. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE HODIGEHALLI POST YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI BENGALURU-560 091.

¶14

SRI NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE HANUMAIAH,

¶15

SMT. ANUSUYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O NANJAPPA,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:40623 CRL.P No. 12913 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE PETITIONER NOS.3 AND 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF VARDENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶20

SMT. AMBIKA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, W/O YOGESH,

¶21

SRI YOGESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O RAJANNA

¶22

THE PETITIONER NOS.5 AND 6 ARE R/AT NEAR ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, SONDEKOPPA MAIN ROAD, TAVAREKERE, BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU - 562 130.

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. VINAYA KUMAR N D., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶27

SRI RANGASWAMY K S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.174, K HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:40623 CRL.P No. 12913 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

KODIGEHALLI POST YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R.1; SRI VINOD KUMAR, C K., ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

¶34

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.387/2023 OF TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 392, 448, 323 AND 506(B) OF IPC., ETC.

¶35

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

Petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 were wife and husband. Disharmony between them resulted in filing of divorce proceedings as well as criminal cases by both of them against each other and their respective families. It is now submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise and it

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40623 CRL.P No. 12913 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

has resulted in divorce being granted and also withdrawal of

¶42

the criminal cases and other cases filed by the wife against the husband. The present criminal petition pertains to the private complaint filed by respondent no.2 - husband against petitioner No.2-wife, and the other petitioners, who are her relatives. The filing of the private complaint has resulted in FIR being registered by way of Crime No.387/2023 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District (Ramanagara).

¶43

The parties are present before the Court and submit that in the light of a compromise entered into between them, respondent No.2 is not interested in prosecuting the case against the petitioners herein. The parties are identified by their respective advocates.

¶44

Both the counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 together submit that the allegations have been made by respondent No.2 against petitioners were more out of vengeance than out of reality, which has resulted in Crime No.387/2023 being registered against the petitioners. It is submitted that the allegations are far from truth.

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40623 CRL.P No. 12913 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, upon instructions, submits that the investigation conducted sofar does not reveal anything and no incriminating evidence is found against the petitioners herein and he has no objection to quash the proceedings.

¶48

Admittedly, the criminal proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners due to a marital conflict between petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2. They have arrived at a compromise. It is apparent that no heinous crime is committed by the petitioners, as alleged. The quashing of the case will only help the petitioners and respondent No.2 to lead their lives respectfully with peace of mind. Further, the learned

¶49

HCGP upon instructions has submitted that no material has been found against the petitioners herein. Under the said circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶50

Hence, the following:-

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. The criminal petition is allowed .

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:40623 CRL.P No. 12913 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

ii. The proceedings initiated by way of Crime No.387/2023 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, against the petitioners herein, are hereby quashed.

¶57

iii. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶58

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶59

VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Sri. Muddegowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Muddegowda 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

S M Ramamurthy Vs State by Central Bureau

Shri. Ravindra Singh Singhvi Vs Union of India

Sri. Arun Kumar. C Vs Smt. Gayathri Madhava

Sri Srinivasa M, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rangaswamy R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Hanumantharaju Vs State by Ramanagara Rural Police Station