Allowed¶89-91

Sri.Raghavendra U v. State of Karnataka

Quashing of criminal proceedings – Matrimonial dispute

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2025CRL.P/14578/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), Mohammad Nawaz J., 03-12-2025 — Crl.P No.14578/2025 c/w Crl.P No.14355/2024 — quashing of charge sheet in C.C.No.50277/2023 (S.498(A) r/w S.34 IPC; Ss.3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act) after amicable matrimonial settlement and mutual-consent divorce in M.C.No.152/2025 (Senior Civil Judge & Principal JMFC, KGF); Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(2) Crimes 90 (SC) relied on; petitions allowed, proceedings quashed, pending IAs disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Both petitions allowed; the entire proceedings in C.C.No.50277/2023 pending on the file of the learned X Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru quashed; pending IAs disposed of. ¶89-91

Sri.Raghavendra U Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:51556 CRL.P No. 14578 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 14355 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14578 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14355 OF 2024

¶9

IN CRL.P No. 14578/2025

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI.RAGHAVENDRA U S/O SRI UMAPATHI MUDALIAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.29, GROUND FLOOR, APPARAO LAYOUT, RAMMURTHY NAGARA, DOORAVANI NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH-560016

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. CHANDRA NAIK T.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

SMT. MONISHA S W/O RAGHAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.29, DEVAKI APPARAO LAYOUT, RAJ KUMAR BUILDING, RAMAMURTHY NAGARA,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:51556 CRL.P No. 14578 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 14355 of 2024

HC-KAR

BANGALORE-560016

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR. M. V., HCGP FOR R1;

¶24

SRI. SHESHADRI GOWDA. T. G. ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE IN C.C.NO.50277/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT IS PENDING BEFORE X ADDL.CMM COURT AT BENGALURU AS AGAINST THE ACCUSED PETITIONER HEREIN.

¶26

IN CRL.P NO. 14355/2024

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SMT BHAGYA LAKSHMI U WIFE OF SRI UMPATHI A AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.29, DEVAKI APPARAO LAYOUT, RAJ KUMAR BUILDING, RAMAMURTHY NAGARA BANGALORE - 560016.

¶29

SRI SUSHEEL KUMAR MUDALIAR SON OF SRI UMPATHI A AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶30

RESIDING AT NO.29, DEVAKI APPARAO LAYOUT, RAJ KUMAR BUILDING, RAMAMURTHY NAGARA BANGALORE - 560016.

¶31

SMT. SHANTHI D WIFE OF SRI SHUSHEEL KUMAR MUDALIAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶32

RESIDING AT NO.29, DEVAKI APPARAO LAYOUT, RAJ KUMAR BUILDING, RAMAMURTHY NAGARA

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:51556 CRL.P No. 14578 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 14355 of 2024

HC-KAR

BANGALORE - 560016.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI.,ADVOCATE)

¶39

AND:

¶40

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶41

BY RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶42

SMT. MONISHA S WIFE OF SRI RAGHAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.29 DEVAKI APPARAO LAYOUT, RAJ KUMAR BUILDING RAMAMURTHY NAGARA BANGALORE - 560016.

¶43

...RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR M. V., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SHESHADRI GOWDA T.G. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SURESHA. M. ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶45

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT-RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE IN CC.NO.50277/2023, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A) R/W 34 OF IPC, SEC.3 AND 4 OF DP ACT, AS AGAINST THE ACCUSED PETITIONERS HEREIN, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE X ACMM COURT AT BENGALURU. I

¶46

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

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:51556 CRL.P No. 14578 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 14355 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶51

ORAL ORDER

¶52

Learned counsel Sri. Sheshadri Gowda. T. G. has

¶53

filed vakalath for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.14578/2025. The same is taken on record.

¶54

Crl.P.No.14578/2025 is preferred by accused No.1 and Crl.P.No.14355/2024 is preferred by accused Nos.2 to 4.

¶55

In both the petitions, petitioners are seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.50277/2023 pending before the learned X Additional CMM Court at Bengaluru.

¶56

The proceedings are initiated on a complaint lodged by second respondent. Charge sheet is filed against petitioners for the offence Punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:51556 CRL.P No. 14578 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 14355 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

The matter arises out of matrimonial dispute.

¶61

The parties are present before the Court. Joint affidavit is filed in both the petitions, signed by the petitioners and respondent No.2 / defacto complainant.

¶62

Averments at relevant paragraph Nos.2 to 5 in the joint affidavit filed in both the petitions are one and the same. The said paragraphs are extracted here under:-

¶63

1. We state that, the 1^st of us herein is the accused No.1 in C.C.No.50277/2023 pending on the file of X A.C.M.M., Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) R/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act and the second of us is the complainant before the trail court.

¶64

2. We state that, at the intervention of the elders and well wishers we have settled the matter as per the judgment and decree of divorce passed in M.C No.152 of 2025 by the court of the Senior Civil judge & Principal JMFC at KGF and since then we have been leaving separately.

¶65

3. We state that, in view of the peaceful settlement between us, the 2nd of us has agreed to

¶66

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:51556 CRL.P No. 14578 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 14355 of 2024

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

withdraw all the cases filed against 1^st of us and his family members and has no intention to pursue the matter further and has agreed to withdraw the allegations and also the cases filed by her and hence no useful purpose would be served if the proceeding is continued.

¶70

4. We state that, in order to have a have amicable and peaceful life the proceedings may be quashed in the interest of justice.

¶71

5. We state that, we are filing this joint affidavit with our free will and wish and there is no threat, coercion or undue influence in filing this affidavit.

¶72

Joint affidavit filed in both the petitions are placed on record.

¶73

It is stated that in M.C. petition No.152/2025, the learned Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC at KGF has passed a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between petitioner in Crl.P.No.14578/2025 and respondent No.2 / defacto complainant. Before the Family Court, the said parties have filed a petition under Section

¶74

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:51556 CRL.P No. 14578 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 14355 of 2024

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and decree of divorce was granted by mutual consent.

¶78

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another reported in 2013(2) Crimes 90(SC), has held 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 of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that, the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code, would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR.’

¶79

Respondent Nos.2 present before the Court submits that, the matter has been settled and therefore, she is not interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings

¶80