Allowed¶¶51

Sri. Santhosh v. the State of Karnataka

Quashing – matrimonial dispute

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2025CRL.P/15081/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), CRL.P No. 15081 of 2025, decided 12-11-2025, Mohammad Nawaz J — quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS in a settled matrimonial dispute (Ss.323, 498A, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC; C.C.No.268/2016, Addl. Civil Judge Jr.Dn & JMFC Ramanagara; Crime No.107/2015, Ramanagara Rural P.S.); joint memo and defacto complainant's consent; relied on Jitendra Raghuvanshi 2013(2) Crimes 90 (SC) and B.S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675; S.320 Cr.P.C. non-compoundable offences no bar; proceedings quashed, petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings in C.C.No.268/2016 pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Ramanagara, quashed. ¶¶51

Sri. Santhosh Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Entire proceedings in C.C.No.268/2016 pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Ramanagara, quashed.

¶¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C.No.268/2016 against the petitioners, arising out of a matrimonial dispute and pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Ramanagara, could be quashed in view of the settlement between the parties evidenced by a joint memo. +1 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

As the matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute settled among the parties and evidenced by a joint memo, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings; the inherent power of the Court can be exercised to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice.

¶¶48

Ratio / Principle

Acting on the Supreme Court decisions in Jitendra Raghuvanshi (2013(2) Crimes 90(SC)) and B.S. Joshi ((2003) 4 SCC 675), which the Court relied upon, the Court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash notwithstanding that the offences charged are non-compoundable, treating Section 320 Cr.P.C. as no bar in genuinely settled matrimonial disputes.

¶¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing — matrimonial dispute — inherent powers under S.482 Cr.P.C. (petition filed u/s 528 BNSS) — C.C.No.268/2016 (Ss.323, 498A, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC) before Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Ramanagara, arising from Crime No.107/2015, Ramanagara Rural P.S. — joint memo filed by petitioners and defacto complainant; petitioner Nos.1 and 2 stated to be living together as husband and wife for the past one year; respondent No.2 affirmed before the Court that the matter is settled, she is living with her husband (petitioner No.1) and has no objection to quashing — relying on Jitendra Raghuvanshi (2013(2) Crimes 90 (SC)) and B.S. Joshi ((2003) 4 SCC 675), held that S.320 Cr.P.C. is no bar to exercise of inherent quashing power in genuinely settled matrimonial disputes even where offences are non-compoundable — petition allowed; entire proceedings quashed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:46092 CRL.P No. 15081 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15081 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. SANTHOSH S/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶11

SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶12

SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE SANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KYLANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR C.K., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMANAGARA RURAL POLICE STATION RAMANAGARA. REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46092 CRL.P No. 15081 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SMT. SARASWATHI W/O SRI. SANTHOSHA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KYLANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA-562 159.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR M.V., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SHUBHANKAR C., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.268/2016 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C., RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 323, 498(A), 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Petitioners are seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.268/2016 pending before the Hon’ble Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Ramanagara, for the offence punishable under Section 323, 498A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46092 CRL.P No. 15081 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Respondent No.2/defacto complainant set the

¶32

law into motion, by lodging a complaint against the petitioners, which was registered in Crime No.107/2015 of Ramanagara Rural Police Station. Consequent to investigation, chargesheet was filed against the petitioners.

¶33

A joint memo is filed, signed by the petitioners

¶34

as well as respondent No.2 and respective counsels appearing for them. It is stated that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are living together for the past one year as husband and wife under one roof and respondent No.2 has expressed that she has no intention to proceed with the criminal case pending against the petitioners.

¶35

Joint memo is placed on record.

¶36

Respondent No.2/defacto complainant present

¶37

before the Court submits that the matter has been settled and she is living with her husband/petitioner No.1 and she has no objection to quash the proceedings.

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46092 CRL.P No. 15081 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶41

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.’

¶42

7. In B.S.Joshi and others V. State of Haryana

¶43

and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C., would not apply to such offences

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46092 CRL.P No. 15081 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶47

The matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute,

¶48

wherein the parties have settled the dispute among themselves and filed a joint memo. Hence, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The inherent power of this Court can be exercised to quash the proceedings, to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

Petition is allowed.

¶51

The entire proceedings in C.C.No.268/2016 pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Ramanagara, are quashed.

¶52

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

¶55