Sri Indrayudh Ganguly Vs State of Karnataka

SRI INDRAYUDH GANGULY S/O. SARADINDU GANGULY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT BLOCK NO. A-03, FLAT NO. 402, 4^TH FLOOR, EDEN COURT, SEEPAT ROAD, NEAR LOYOLA SCHOOL, LIGIYADIH, BILASPUR, CHATTISGARH-495 006, ALSO AT M/S. TIAA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HIRANANDANI GARDENS, WINCHESTER, POWAI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400 076.

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. RINKU GANGULY W/O. SARADINDU GANGULY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT BLOCK NO. A-03, FLAT NO. 402, 4^TH FLOOR, EDEN COURT, SEEPAT ROAD, NEAR LOYOLA SCHOOL, LIGIYADIH, BILASPUR, CHATTISGARH-495 006.

¶13

SRI. SARADINDU GANGULY S/O. N. G. GANGULY @ NANI GOPAL GANGULY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:51815 CRL.P No. 15115 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

R/AT BLOCK NO. A-03, FLAT NO. 402, 4TH FLOOR, EDEN COURT, SEEPAT ROAD, NEAR LOYOLA SCHOOL, LIGIYADIH, BILASPUR, CHATTISGARH-495 006.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. VINOD M.,ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EAST DIVISION WOMEN POLICE STATION, (EAST WOMEN P.S) BENGALURU BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-562 101.

¶22

SMT. RESHMI. MANOHAR D/O. V. S. MANOHAR @ VELAYUDHARAN AYAR MANOHAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO. 8, PAVITHRAM, 2ND CROSS, 5TH MAIN, NEAR VINUTHA CAR WASH, NRI LAYOUT, VARANASI, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 016.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI. K., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. KIRAN KUMAR B. M. ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS OF CRIMINAL CASE IN CC.NO.62693/2025, PENDING BEFORE THE XI ACJM, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A),504 OF IPC, 1860, U/S 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT, 1961.

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:51815 CRL.P No. 15115 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

This is a case arising out of matrimonial dispute,

¶33

wherein, the second respondent has set the law into motion against the petitioners and based on her complaint, case was registered in Crime No.163/2024, at East Women Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence Punishable under Section 498-A and 504 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Police have filed charge sheet, on completion of investigation. Petitioners are seeking to quash the proceedings pending before the trial Court.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and respondent No.2 would submit that the matter has been settled by the parties before the Family Court at Bengaluru in M.C.No.7849/2024 wherein, pursuant to the memorandum of settlement, filed by them, the Family

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:51815 CRL.P No. 15115 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Court has passed a decree dissolving the marriage between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1.

¶39

Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are present before the Court. An application under Section 528 read with Section 359 of the BNSS, is filed seeking permission to compound the offence, on the ground of settlement. The said application is supported by the joint affidavit of the parties. The application and the joint affidavit are taken on record.

¶40

It is submitted that before the Family Court, as per the terms of memorandum of settlement, petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to respondent No.2 herein. A demand draft bearing No.000635 dated 23.09.2025 drawn on HDFC Bank, for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn in the name of respondent No.2 is handed over by the petitioner to respondent No.2, today, The receipt of the same is acknowledged.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51815 CRL.P No. 15115 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Respondent No.2 present before the Court

¶44

submits that, in view of settlement, she has no objection to quash the proceedings.

¶45

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 noncompoundable, 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.’

¶46