Allowed¶69

Vishwas R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2025CRL.P/13965/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Justice Mohammad Nawaz, 09.10.2025) allows CRL.P 13965/2025 c/w 12130/2024 (S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS) and quashes S.498-A r/w 34 IPC and Ss.3-4 Dowry Prohibition Act proceedings (CC 3884/2024; Crime 12/2024, Girinagar PS, XXXVII Addl. CJM Bengaluru) against husband and in-laws after settlement, dissolution of marriage (MC 5749/2025, order dated 15.09.2025) and Rs.20,50,000/- permanent alimony; relies on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.

What did the court decide?

Both petitions allowed; the entire proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.3884/2024 on the file of the learned XXXVII Additional CJM Court at Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w. 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are quashed. ¶69

Vishwas R Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings in CC No.3884/2024 against the petitioners (accused Nos.1 to 3) for offences punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ought to be quashed in view of the settlement/compromise reported between the parties.

¶57

Court's answer

In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the chances of conviction of the accused were very bleak and no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal prosecution against the petitioners to continue.

¶68

Ratio / Principle

To achieve substantial justice (consistent with the twin objects for exercise of inherent power drawn from Gian Singh), the Court held it just and proper to quash the proceedings.

¶69

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Husband (accused No.1, Crl.P.No.13965/2025) and his parents (accused Nos.2 and 3, Crl.P.No.12130/2024) sought quashing of the entire proceedings in CC No.3884/2024 (Crime No.12/2024, Girinagar P.S., Bengaluru City) pending before the XXXVII Additional CJM Court for offences under S.498-A r/w 34 IPC and Ss.3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, under S.482 Cr.P.C. (filed under S.528 BNSS). Counsel filed IA 1/2025 in both petitions reporting settlement and seeking compounding; the de-facto complainant-wife, present and identified before the Court, affirmed she did not wish to continue. The marriage had been dissolved on 15.09.2025 in MC No.5749/2025 (V Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru) with Rs.20,50,000/- paid as full-and-final settlement and permanent alimony, undisputed by respondent No.2. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (inherent power exercised for twin objects: preventing abuse of process and doing real, complete and substantial justice), the Court found conviction unlikely and quashed the entire proceedings; both petitions allowed. — Mohammad Nawaz, J.; 09.10.2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:39790 CRL.P No. 13965 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12130 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13965 OF 2025 C/W

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12130 OF 2024

¶10

IN CRL.P NO. 13965/2025

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

VISHWAS R S/O RAMANANDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO. 917/1045, 1ST 'F' MAIN GIRINAGARA, BANASHANKARAI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU-560085.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. K A CHANDRASHEKARA., ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY-560085. REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560091.

¶18

HARICHANDANA B.A. D/O ANAND.B.R AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO 41,1ST CROSS 15TH MAIN ROAD

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:39790 CRL.P No. 13965 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12130 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

MUNESHWARA BLOCK BENGALURU-560026.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. B N JAGADEESH, ADDL. SPP FOR R1: SRI VIJYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. N PADMAVATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.3884/2024 NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XXXVII ACJM COURT AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A R/W 34 IPC AND 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER HEREIN IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶26

IN CRL.P NO. 12130/2024

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SMT.SRILATHA

¶29

W/O RAMANANDA

¶30

NOW AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶31

R/AT NO. 917/1045 1ST F MAIN ROAD GIRINAGARA, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU 560085.

¶32

RAMANANDA

¶33

S/O LATE NARAYAN G R

¶34

NOW AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO. 917/1045 1ST F MAIN ROAD GIRINAGARA, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU 560085.

¶35

...PETITIONERS

¶36

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K A., ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY 560085

¶39

REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:39790 CRL.P No. 13965 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12130 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU 560091

¶44

HARICHANDANA B A W/O VISHWAS R NOW AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO. 41 ST CROSS 15TH MAIN ROAD MUNESHWARA BLOCK BENGALURU 560026

¶45

...RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI. B N JAGADEESH, ADDL. SPP FOR R1: SRI VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. N PADMAVATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶47

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 3884/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XXXII ADDL. CMM AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A R/W 34 IPC AND 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS HEREIN ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶48

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

¶49

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶50

ORAL ORDER

¶51

These petitions arise out of Crime No.12/2024 of Girinagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, pending before the XXXVII Additional CJM Court at Bengaluru in CC No.3884/2024.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:39790 CRL.P No. 13965 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12130 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w. 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶56

Petitioner in Crl.P.No.13965/2025 is accused No. 1 and petitioners in Crl.P.No.12130/2024 are accused Nos. 2 and 3, respectively.

¶57

The learned counsels representing the respective parties have filed IA 1/2025 in both the petitions reporting settlement and to permit to compound the offences and consequently to quash the entire proceedings pending before the trial court.

¶58

Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant as well as the petitioners are present before the Court and they are identified by the learned counsel appearing for them.

¶59

The de-facto complainant submits that the matter has been settled in terms of the compromise and

¶60

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39790 CRL.P No. 13965 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12130 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

therefore, she is not interested to continue with the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

¶63

It is also submitted that a petition in MC No. 5749/2025 was filed before the learned V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru and in terms of the compromise, the marriage of accused No. 1 with respondent No.2 has been dissolved by order dated 15.09.2025, wherein a sum of Rs.20,50,000/- was paid to respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement and permanent alimony, which is not disputed by respondent No. 2.

¶64

8. In GIAN SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB reported

¶65

in 2012 (10) SCC 303, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the inherent powers of the High Court is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation, but it has to be exercised to achieve either of twin objects, viz., (i) to prevent abuse of the process of the court and (ii) to do real, complete and substantial justice.

¶66

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39790 CRL.P No. 13965 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12130 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

In view of the settlement so arrived at between the parties, chances of conviction of the accused is very bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioners, to continue. Hence, in order to achieve substantial justice, it is just and proper to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the following order:

¶69

(i) Both the petitions are allowed.

¶70

(ii) The entire proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.3884/2024 on the file of the learned XXXVII Additional CJM Court at Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w. 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are quashed.

¶71

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶72

¶73

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 25

Vishwas R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwas R v. the 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

Mrs. Shakeera, Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Vishwanath Vs Smt. Mangala

Shyamal Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. a. D. Nagaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Darshan Thoogudeepa Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kirankumar N S Vs the State by Karnataka