Sri. Vinayaka Tukaram Bhosle v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2025CRL.P/14033/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court quashes FIR Crime No.247/2025 (Chandra Layout P.S., Sections 64 & 318(2) BNS 2023, 46th Addl. CMM Bengaluru) on marriage and amicable settlement between accused and de facto complainant; inherent powers S.482 CrPC / S.528 BNSS; Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi 2013(2) Crimes 90(SC) relied on; CRL.P No.14033/2025; Mohammad Nawaz, J.; decided 14.10.2025; joint affidavit; complainant withdrew; I.A.No.1/2025 disposed.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.247/2025 of Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City, and the entire proceedings thereon pending before the 46th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (offences under Sections 64 and 318(2) of BNS, 2023), quashed; I.A.No.1/2025 disposed of. ¶¶64

Sri. Vinayaka Tukaram Bhosle Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.247/2025 (offences under Sections 64 and 318(2) of BNS 2023) and the consequent proceedings before the 46th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, should be quashed in view of the marriage of the complainant with the accused and their amicable settlement.

¶¶61

Court's answer

On the material on record, the relationship between the parties was consensual and has culminated in their marriage as stated in the joint affidavit, and the parties have amicably settled the dispute.

¶¶61

Ratio / Principle

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no purpose will be served in continuing the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner, and in the interest of justice it is just and proper to quash the proceedings.

¶¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. (filed u/S 528 BNSS) by the sole accused in FIR Crime No.247/2025 of Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru (Sections 64 and 318(2), BNS 2023), pending before the 46th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The complainant, a 24-year-old major and former co-worker HR trainee of the petitioner at Creatigrity Tech Private Limited, had alleged a forcible sexual relationship. By joint affidavit the parties recorded that they had since married, settled all disputes amicably and voluntarily, and that respondent No.2 had no objection to quashing; before the Court she confirmed the resolution was without force, coercion or undue influence. Relying on Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(2) Crimes 90(SC) (inherent powers of the High Court wide and unfettered; genuine settlements to be encouraged even where offences are non-compoundable), the Court found the relationship consensual, culminated in marriage, and held that no purpose would be served in continuing the prosecution. Petition ALLOWED; entire proceedings arising out of Crime No.247/2025 quashed; I.A.No.1/2025 disposed of. (Mohammad Nawaz, J.; 14.10.2025.)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:40620 CRL.P No. 14033 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14033 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. VINAYAKA TUKARAM BHOSLE AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS S/O TUKARAM BHOSLE R/AT NO.18, 1^ST MAIN NETHRAVATHI ROAD, MARUTHINAGAR, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560072, KARNATAKA.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. LALITH KUMAR R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY, REP. BY HCGP, SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT BUILDING AT BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

NISHA D SOUZA D/O JEROLD D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO.52, SHARAVATHI STREET NAGAPPA REDDY LAYOUT RAMURTHY NAGAR BANGALORE-560016.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1/STATE; SRI. RITHWIK BALANAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:40620 CRL.P No. 14033 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.247/2025, PENDING CONSIDERATION ON THE FILE OF THE 46^TH ACMM, AT BENGALURU, REGISTERED BY CHANDRA LAYOUT P.S FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 64 AND 318(2) OF BNS 2023 AND ETC.

¶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/sole accused in Crime No.247/2025 of Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City registered for the offence punishable under Section 64, 318(2) of BNS, 2023 has preferred this petition seeking to quash the FIR and the consequent proceedings pending on the file of the 46^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶27

As per the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, she was working in Creatigrity Tech Private Limited as a HR Trainee and the petitioner was a co-worker, working as a HR trainee. It is alleged that the petitioner

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40620 CRL.P No. 14033 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

forced her to have a sexual relationship with him and later

¶31

when she conceived, she reported the matter to his parents, but they denied the relationship and threatened her etc.

¶32

A memo has been filed along with the joint

¶33

affidavit of the parties which reads as under:

¶34

“1. Sri. Vinayaka Tukaram Bhosle, Aged about 21 years, S/o Tukaram Bhosle, R/@ No.18, 1^st Main, Nethravathi Road, Maruhinagar, Chandra layout, Bengaluru-560072 being the Petitioner 1 No.52, Sharavathi Street, Nagappa Reddy Layout, Ramurthy Nagar, Bangalore-560016, being the Respondent No.2 Karnataka do hereby solemnly affirm on oath and state as follows :-

¶35

1. We submit that, First of us is the Petitioner and Second of us are the Respondents No.2, respectively, in the above case and as such we know the facts and circumstances of the above case and hence, we are swearing this affidavit.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40620 CRL.P No. 14033 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

2. That the complainant/Respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint against the accused/Petitioner, resulting in registration of FIR in Cr.No.0247/2025 dated 16.06.2025, under Sections 64 & 318(2) of the BNS at Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru.

¶39

3. After due discussion and the blessings of well-wishers, myself and the Petitioner have married each other and hence I am not willing to continue the case against the Petitioner & I have no objection to quash the entire proceedings against the Petitioners.

¶40

4. That during the pendency of proceedings, both parties have resolved the dispute amicably and voluntarily, without any force, coercion, or undue influence.

¶41

5. That I, the Second Respondent, state that I have now conceived and am currently 4 months into the pregnancy period and hence decide to withdraw my allegations towards the best interests of our child.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40620 CRL.P No. 14033 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

6. I, the Second Respondent further state that I was unaware about the ordeal faced by the Petitioner and realized that pending of the proceedings would hamper his future along with our child's also and hence desired to withdraw our allegations made against the Petitioner and close the case on our own will and volition.

¶45

7. I, the Second Respondent further state that since all disputes between me and Petitioner are settled in full, I am are not willing to prosecute our complaint against the Petitioners and have no objection to quash the of FIR in Cr. No.0247/2025 dated 16.06.2025, under Sections 64 & 318(2) of the BNS at Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, now pending before 46^th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

¶46

8. We state that in view of the mutual settlement of all disputes pending between us, we have no grievances or claim against each other in future and we have filed this joint affidavit on our own volition without any coercion or threat, seeking to quash

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40620 CRL.P No. 14033 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the case in of FIR in Cr. No.0247/2025 dated 16.06.2025, under Sections 64 & 318(2) of the BNS at Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, now pending before 46^th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

¶50

9. We state that we have no further claims and counter claims on ear other as all disputes and claims are settled in full and final.”

¶51

Petitioner and respondent No.2 are present

¶52

before the petitioner. Respondent No.2 submits that the dispute has been amicably resolved without any force or coercion or undue influence and she is not interested in pursuing the matter any further.

¶53

Admittedly, respondent No.2/defacto

¶54

complainant is a major aged about 24 years. It is stated in the joint affidavit that petitioner and respondent No.2

¶55

are now married and therefore, respondent No.2 is not

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:40620 CRL.P No. 14033 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

willing to continue the case against the petitioner and has no objection to quash the proceedings.

¶59

In Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v.

¶60

Babita Raghuvanshi and another reported in 2013(2) Crimes 90(SC), it is held by the Apex Court that ‘the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., are wide and unfettered. It is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements, even if the offences are non-compoundable and if it is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably without any pressure.’

¶61

The material on record would reveal that the relationship between the parties is consensual which is now culminated in the marriage, as stated in the joint affidavit. The parties have amicably settled the dispute. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no purpose will be served in continuing the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner. Hence, in the

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:40620 CRL.P No. 14033 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

interest of justice, it is just and proper to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

Petition is allowed .

¶67

The entire proceedings arising out of Crime No.247/2025 of Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City pending before the 46^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru registered for the offence punishable under Section 64 and 318(2) of BNS, 2023 are quashed.

¶68

I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of.

¶69

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶70

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 92

Sri. Vinayaka Tukaram Bhosle v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Vinayaka Tukaram Bhosle 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

Khana Sharma @ Khana Pandeeth Vs State of Karnataka

Raghu T L Vs State by Holenarasipura Rural Police Hassan District

Mrs Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Pratik Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Puttaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Nithin Kumar N Vs State of Karnataka by