Shihabuddin Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.993/2025 FOR THE O/P/U/S 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) OF BNS AND SEC. PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR, D.K. DISTRICT OF D.K. WOMENS POLICE STATION, D.K. DISTRICT, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Petitioner is seeking to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.993/2025 pending on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, D.K. District.

¶26

As it is submitted that the dispute has been resolved between the parties, with the consent of both the learned counsel, petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶27

The criminal proceedings are initiated on a complaint lodged by respondent No.2 in Crime No.36/2025 of D.K. Women Police Station, Dakshina Kannada district. Charge

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:50512 CRL.P No. 16298 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS, 2023.

¶32

The petitioner as well as respondent No.2/defacto complainant are present before the Court. They are identified by their respective learned counsel. An application is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC along with the affidavits of the petitioner and respondent No.2.

¶33

As per the contents of the affidavit, the misunderstanding between the parties was resolved with the intervention of both the families and the parties are residing together as husband and wife and leading the matrimonial life very cordially.

¶34

Respondent No.2/defacto complainant submits that she has decided to withdraw the allegations in the complaint in view of the settlement and she is not interested in proceeding with the case any further.

¶35

Matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute, wherein the petitioner and respondent No.2/defacto complainant namely the husband and wife respectively have resolved the entire dispute and leading a matrimonial life.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:50512 CRL.P No. 16298 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

"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.’

¶40

In B.S.Joshi and others V. State of Haryana 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 which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C."

¶41