Divakar M D Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.3863/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED VI ACJM COURT, BENGALURU CITY, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER HEREIN CONCERNED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A) R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:40269 CRL.P No. 14084 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.286/2022 of Jnanabharthi Police Station, Bengaluru City, has preferred this petition to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.3863/2023, now pending on the file of the learned VI ACJM Court, Bengaluru City.

¶32

Respondent No.2 is the wife of the petitioner. On her complaint the aforementioned case was registered against the petitioner/husband and her parents-in-law for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶33

The petitioner as well as respondent No.2 are present before the Court.

¶34

An application is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking permission of the Court to compound the offence and quash the entire proceedings. The application is signed by the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 and their respective learned counsels. A

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:40269 CRL.P No. 14084 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

joint affidavit is also filed by the petitioner and respondent

¶39

No.2 in support of the application.

¶40

It is stated that marriage of respondent No.2

¶41

was performed with the petitioner on 03.06.2020. There were some differences of opinion between them, which resulted in failure of marriage. Now at the instance of elders and well-wishers, they have settled all their disputes amicably and in view of the settlement so arrived, they have entered into a memorandum of settlement in Writ Petition No.16465/2024 (GM-FC) and also in M.C.No.5816/2022, pending on the file of the Family Court at Bengaluru. It is further stated that the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- to respondent No.2 towards full and final settlement and permanent alimony and she has agreed to accept the same and already an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- has been paid by way of Demand Draft in the above noted writ petition. The petitioner has undertaken to pay the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in M.C.No.5816/2022.

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:40269 CRL.P No. 14084 of 2025

¶43

5 -

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Respondent No.2 who is present before the Court would submit that, in view of the settlement arrived, she does not wish to proceed with the matter any further and she has no objection to quash the proceedings.

¶46

In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the inherent powers of 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 any Court, (ii) to do real, complete and substantial justice. It is further held that formation of the opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (528 of BNSS, 2023), is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40269 CRL.P No. 14084 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

It is well settled that the criminal cases having overwhelming 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.

¶50

The matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute, wherein respondent No.2/defacto complainant has resolved all the differences pursuant to the amicable settlement arrived between herself and the petitioner.

¶51

In view of the settlement so arrived, the chances of conviction of the accused is very bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue.

¶52

In the above facts and circumstances, in order to meet the ends of justice, it is just and proper to allow the application and consequently to quash the proceedings.

¶53