Allowed¶52

Sri Suraj Singh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2025CRL.P/2806/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings; matrimonial dispute amicably settled; S.482 Cr.P.C. inherent powers; petition filed under S.528 BNSS; IPC Sections 506, 498A r/w 34; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 S.4; FIR Crime No.370/12 Subramanyapura Police Station; C.C.No.953/2013 XXX Addl. CMM Court Bengaluru; de facto complainant affidavit withdrawing allegations; Narider Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; Jitendra Raghuvanshi 2013(2) Crimes 90 (SC); ends of justice; prevention of abuse of process; S.320 Cr.P.C. not a bar to quashing FIR in settled matrimonial disputes.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings in C.C.No.953/2013, pending on the file of the learned XXX Additional CMM Court, Nurpathunga Road, Bengaluru, quashed. ¶52

Sri Suraj Singh Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:52103 CRL.P No. 2806 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2806 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SURAJ SINGH SON OF LATE JAGANNATH SINGH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT 403, BEHIND VIJAYA BANK ADJACENT TO ROOPA THEATRE NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL BANGALORE - 562 123

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PONNANNA M.B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KESHAV MURTHY K.R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA SUBRAMANYAPURA P.S. REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU-01

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SMT. PARVATHI WIFE OF SURAJ SINGH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.26, 18^TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR POORNAPRAGNYA LAYOUT APARTMENT, BANGALORE - 560 061

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR M.V., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. BASAVARAJU S.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.03.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN C.C.NO.953/2013 AND FURTHER THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.953/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LRD. XXX ADDL. CMM COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD AT BANGALORE.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:52103 CRL.P No. 2806 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 order dated 18.01.2013 taking cognizance of the offence mentioned in the charge sheet and the filing of the charge sheet in C.C.No.953/2013, pending on the file of the learned XXX Additional CMM Court, Nurpathunga Road, Bengaluru.

¶26

FIR was registered in Crime No.370/12 at Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 498A r/w.34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on a complaint filed by respondent No.2, against accused 1 to 3 and others. Charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner alone dropping the names of others.

¶27

Matter arises out of matrimonial dispute, wherein the learned counsel appearing for the parties would submit that the dispute has been settled.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:52103 CRL.P No. 2806 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Affidavit is filed by respondent No.2/ de facto Complainant.

¶32

Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the affidavit are extracted hereunder :

¶33

"2. I submit that, I have given a complaint first respondent police station against the petitioner for offence punishable under section 506, 498A and r/w with Section 34 of IPC, the same registrar in crime No.370 of 2012 and charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.953/2013 same is pending Before the Hon'ble II ACMM at Bengaluru,

¶34

I submit that, the complaint was given to the first respondent under the heat of movement and over trivial issues against the petitioner and now I am not having any intention to prosecute and continue the above case against the petitioner, as an amicable settlement has been arrived between me and petitioner and all the allegations made in said complaint is withdrawn by me made against the petitioner.

¶35

I submit that, the in the interest of justice by considering the intention to settle the dispute me and the petitioner, hence may kindly accept this affidavit and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.953 of 2013 against the petitioner."

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:52103 CRL.P No. 2806 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

The petitioner is present through Video Conferencing and respondent No.2 is physically present before the Court. The parties are identified by their respective counsel.

¶40

Respondent No.2/the de-facto complainant submits that the matter has been amicably settled and she has withdrawn all the allegations made against the petitioner, hence, she has no objection to quash the proceedings.

¶41

The Hon'ble Apex Court in NARIDER SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held that when the parties have reached the settlement, and on that basis, petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to: i) secure ends of justice, or ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. Those criminal cases having overwhelming and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transaction or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family dispute should be quashed when parties have resolved their entire dispute among themselves.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52103 CRL.P No. 2806 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and

¶45

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.

¶46

Considering the nature of dispute and since the parties have settled the matter, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner. To secure the ends of justice, it is just and necessary to allow the petition and quash the proceedings.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:52103 CRL.P No. 2806 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50