Allowed¶65

Sri Rutthvick K v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2025CRL.P/13709/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: quash criminal proceedings; Section 482 CrPC; Section 528 BNSS; joint memo under Section 359 r/w 528 BNSS; matrimonial dispute; Section 498A IPC; Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Crime No.39/2023 East Zone Women Police Station Bengaluru; C.C.No.23479/2023 XI ACMM Court Bengaluru; settlement/compromise; Karnataka Mediation Centre; Section 89 CPC r/w Rules 24 and 25 Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005; divorce decree M.C.No.4419/2025 Family Court Bengaluru; permanent alimony Rs.5,00,000/-; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466; Mohammad Nawaz J.; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40119; I.A.No.1/2025 disposed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the entire proceedings in C.C.No.23479/2023 pending on the file of the XI ACMM Court, Bengaluru are quashed; I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of. ¶65

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; the entire proceedings in C.C.No.23479/2023 pending on the file of the XI ACMM Court, Bengaluru are quashed; I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of.

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C.No.23479/2023 (arising out of Crime No.39/2023, for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) should be quashed in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, with the consent of respondent No.2/defacto complainant.

¶59

Court's answer

Following the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, and since the parties have settled their dispute (divorce decreed in M.C.No.4419/2025 and permanent alimony paid), no purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners; to meet the ends of justice it is just and proper to quash the proceedings.

¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of matrimonial-dispute criminal case on settlement between parties — CRL.P No.13709/2025 by accused Nos.1 to 4 sought quashing of C.C.No.23479/2023 pending before the XI ACMM Court, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.39/2023 of East Zone Women Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A joint memo was filed under Section 359 r/w 528 of BNSS, 2023; respondent No.2/defacto complainant stated she had no objection to quashing. The marriage had been dissolved by a decree of divorce in M.C.No.4419/2025 (I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru) pursuant to settlement before the Karnataka Mediation Centre, and respondent No.2 received Rs.5,00,000/- towards permanent alimony (Rs.2,50,000/- paid earlier; balance Rs.2,50,000/- paid by D.D.No.256509 dated 18.07.2025). Relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court held that continuation of the proceedings would serve no purpose; petition allowed, entire proceedings quashed, I.A.No.1/2025 disposed of.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:40119 CRL.P No. 13709 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13709 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. RUTTHVICK K. S/O LATE KODANDA RAM, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, #543, 4^TH MAIN, SATTELITE BUS STOP, NGEF LAYOUT, SADANANDA NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 038.

¶10

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SMT. LALITHA S. W/O LATE KODANDA RAM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, #3, 16^TH CROSS, GAYATHRI LAYOUT, BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU-560 036.

¶12

SHUBASHRI W/O NARASIMHA V., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, #169, 6^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, NEAR SHANKARNAG PARK, POORNAPRAGNA LAYOUT, KATHRIGUPPE, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085.

¶13

NARASIMHA V. S/O VENUGOPAL A., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:40119 CRL.P No. 13709 of 2025

¶15

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

#169, 6^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, NEAR SHANKARNAG PARK, POORNAPRAGNA LAYOUT, KATHRIGUPPE, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA EAST ZONE WOMEN P.S., BENGALURU. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶22

SMT. KEERTHANA K. W/O RUTTHVICK K., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT # 621/27, 1^ST MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 050.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. K. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ASHIK N. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. JAMUNA BAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.23479/2023 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A), 323, 504 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT REGISTERED BY EAST ZONE WOMEN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU IN CRIME NO.39/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XI ACMM COURT, BENGALURU.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:40119 CRL.P No. 13709 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 have preferred this petition praying to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.23479/2023 on the file of the Court of XI ACMM Court, Bengaluru.

¶33

The above case arise out of Crime No.39/2023 of East Zone Women Police Station, Bengaluru City, registered on a complaint lodged by respondent No.2.

¶34

Chargesheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 4

¶35

for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶36

A joint memo is filed under Section 359 r/w 528 of BNSS, 2023, signed by the petitioners as well as respondent No.2.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:40119 CRL.P No. 13709 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

It is stated that the parties have settled the

¶41

matter and in terms of the settlement, respondent No.2/defacto complainant has agreed not to proceed with the case pending before the trial Court.

¶42

Petitioners as well as respondent No.2 are

¶43

present before the Court. They are identified by their respective learned counsels.

¶44

Respondent No.2 submits that the matter has

¶45

been settled and in view of the same she has no objection

¶46

to quash the proceedings now pending against the petitioners.

¶47

It is also submitted that in M.C.No.4419/2025,

¶48

the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru has granted a decree of divorce and dissolved the marriage between the parties, in terms of the settlement entered between them before the Karnataka Mediation Centre, Bengaluru.

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:40119 CRL.P No. 13709 of 2025

¶50

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

As per the terms of memorandum of settlement

¶53

filed under Section 89 of CPC r/w Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005, respondent No.2 has agreed to file a joint memo before this Court for closing the C.C.No.23479/2023 pending before the XI ACMM Court, Bengaluru.

¶54

As per the joint memo filed, respondent No.2 has agreed to receive a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/towards permanent alimony. It is submitted that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- has already been paid in M.C.No.4419/2025 before the Family Court, Bengaluru. Today by way of D.D.No.256509 dated 18.07.2025 a sum of Rs.2,50,000/has been paid to respondent No.2, which is acknowledged by her.

¶55

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and 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

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40119 CRL.P No. 13709 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be:(i) to secure ends of justice; or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It is further held that the 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.

¶59

In view of the settlement entered between the parties, no purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners. Hence, to meet the ends of justice it is just and proper to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

Petition is allowed .

¶62