Sri. Prakash B.U., Vs Smt. Padmapriya D.

SMT. PADMAPRIYA D., D/O SRI G DALAVAI SWAMY W/O SRI PRAKASH B U AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.1737, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, C BLOCK, SAHAKARNAGAR BENGALURU-560 092.

¶10

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS BASAVANGUDI, WOMEN POLICE BENGALURU, NOW REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

[BY SMT. SHREE TEJSHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (VK FILED); SRI THEJESH, HCGP FOR R2]

¶14

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO. 7072/2023, ON THE FILE OF 32 ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU, AT BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961 AND UNDER SECTION 498(A), 504, 323 OF IPC, IN THE ABOVE PETITION.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:6618 CRL.P No. 1451 of 2025

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

¶20

“Quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.7072/2023, on the file of the 32^nd Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bengaluru at Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and under Section 498(a), 504, 323 of IPC.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner – accused and learned counsel for the first respondent – complainant have filed an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C for compromise duly signed by the petitioner, first respondent and their respective counsels and the same is taken on record.

¶22

Petitioner - accused and first respondent are physically

¶23

present before the Court and they admit the contents of the application for compromise, which read as under:-

¶24

“1. The above petition is filed for quashing of proceedings in C.C. No.7072/2023 (Crime No.348/2022) in the file of 32^nd Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bengaluru, at Bengaluru, against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and under 498(a),504,323 of IPC.

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:6618 CRL.P No. 1451 of 2025

¶27

2. Whereas the complainant / respondent No. 1 herein has given a complaint against the accused / petitioner herein and based on the said complaint the 2nd respondent police has registered in Crime. No. 348/2022, on the file of 37th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bengaluru, at Bengaluru, (Latter transferred the 32nd Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bengaluru, at Bengaluru) for the offences punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and under section 498(a),504,323 of IPC.

¶28

3. Based on the alleged complaint and charge sheet is filed and the respondent police have registered a case under C.C. No.7072/2023, for the offence punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and under section 498(a),504,323 of IPC, Now pending before 32^nd Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bengaluru, against the petitioner.

¶29

4. It is submitted that the petitioner and respondent No. 1 are the husband and wife and the intervention of elders and well-wishers, the Victim/ respondent No.1 and petitioner / accused have resolved their small disputes between them and the respondent No.1 and petitioner.

¶30

5. The respondent had filed petition in M.C.No.6325/2023 on the file of 3rd Addl. Prl. Judge Family court at Bengaluru for the relief of decree of Divorce. In spite of their best of efforts, they are unable to reconcile their differences and living separately. The aforesaid petition was referred to mediation for resolving

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:6618 CRL.P No. 1451 of 2025

¶33

the dispute between the parties, during the course of mediation they have resolved their dispute and have agreed to the terms and conditions in the Memorandum of Agreement dated 21.09.2024.

¶34

6. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties the respondent has agreed to withdraw/closure the cases filed by her against the petitioner in said agreement in clause No.6.

¶35

7. In view of compromise, the respondent No.1 has no objection for quashing in proceedings in C.C.No.7072 /2023 (Crime. No. 348/2022), on the file of 32^nd Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bengaluru, for the offences punishable section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and under section 498(a),504,323 of IPC.

¶36

8. The contents are read, explained and they have understood the same. After understanding the same, the parties are entering into this compromise petition. There is absolutely no force, coercion, undue influence or duress from any quarter whatsoever.

¶37

WHEREFORE, the parties hereto respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.7072 /2023 (Crime. No. 348/2022), the file of 32^nd Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and under section 498(a),504,323 of IPC as per the terms and conditions of the Joint Memo/Compromise entered into

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6618 CRL.P No. 1451 of 2025

¶39

between the parties, in the above case, in the interest of justice."

¶40

In view of the aforesaid settlement entered into

¶41

between the petitioner and the first respondent, I pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) The petition is disposed of in terms of the

¶44

application filed under Section 320 of Cr.P.C for compromise dated 13.02.2025.

¶45

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.7072/2023 (arising out of Crime No.348/2022 of 2^nd respondent – Police) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(a), 504, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending on the file of the XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar as the petitioner is concerned are hereby quashed.

¶46

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶47

RB

Sri. Prakash B.U., v. Smt. Padmapriya D.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Prakash B.U., v. Smt. Padmapriya D.

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

Mohammad Sadik Vs State of Karnataka

Dr. Amrutha B. Ujjamma Vs Smt. Anitha. N

B H Ramesh Vs State by

Sri Akash P R Vs the State by v v Puram Traffic Police

Mrs. Maimoona Syed Ali Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh P Vs the State by