Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey Vs State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2025)

Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey Vs State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the FIR in Cr.No.238/2019 of Hulimavu Police Station and the entire proceedings in CC No.6795/2020 pending before the V ACMM, Bengaluru; I.A.No.1/2022 disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Cr.No.238/2019 registered at Hulimavu Police Station for offences under Sections 498A and 506 IPC, and the entire proceedings in CC No.6795/2020 before the Court of V ACMM, Bengaluru, should be quashed in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

Court's answer

In view of the settlement between the parties, the dissolution of the marriage, and the absence of objection from respondent No.2, no purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending before the trial Court.

Ratio / Principle

The entire proceedings in CC No.6795/2020 pending on the file of the V ACMM, Bengaluru (Cr.No.238/2019 of Hulimavu Police Station) stand quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing — Matrimonial dispute — Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by husband and parents-in-law to quash FIR Cr.No.238/2019 (Sections 498A & 506 IPC, Hulimavu P.S.) and proceedings in CC No.6795/2020 before V ACMM, Bengaluru, lodged by wife (respondent No.2, defacto complainant). During pendency, parties filed a Memorandum of Settlement under Section 89 CPC r/w Rules 24 & 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005 in MC No.650/2020; clause 7 contained reciprocal clauses for closure/quashing of cross-cases (CC No.8642/2021 under Sections 499 & 506 IPC) and withdrawal of DV proceedings (Crl.Misc.No.56/2020, Section 12 DV Act); the Family Court dissolved the marriage by order dated 27.9.2024. Counsel for respondent No.2 stated she had no objection to closure. Relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Court held that no purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending where the parties had resolved their disputes, and quashed the entire proceedings; I.A.No.1/2022 disposed of.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15317 CRL.P No. 2856 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2856 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

MR. RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, SON OF DINESH PRASAD PANDEY, CURRENTLY RESIDING AT NO.19 FIRST FLOOR, 4^TH C BLOCK, 12^TH MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034.

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

DINESH PRASAD PANDEY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, SON OF CHANDRIKA PASAD PANDEY, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT: MIG-153, SOHAWAL TIRAHA, PEPTECH CITY, SOHAWAL, SATNA, MADHYA PRADESH-485 441.

SHANTI DEVI PANDEY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, WIFE OF DINESH PARSAD SHETTY, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT: MIG-153, SOHAWAL TIRAHA, PEPTECH CITY, SOHAWAL, SATNA, MADHYA PRADESH-485 441.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. KAPIL DIXIT, ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15317 CRL.P No. 2856 of 2022

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA HULIMAVU P.S., R/B STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

RICHA THAKUR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WIFE OF RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, DAUGHTER OF M.S.THAKUR, RESIDING AT: VILLA NO.108, HIMAGIRI LAYOUT MEADOWS, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, GOTTIGERE, BENGALURU-560 083.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY MS. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1; SRI. RAVI A. BELAGATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BEARING CRIME NO.0238/2019 IN CC NO.6795/2020 PENDING BEFORE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN HULIMAVU POLICE STATION BY 2^ND RESPONDENT U/S 506 AND 498A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.

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

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:15317 CRL.P No. 2856 of 2022

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR in Cr.No.238/2019 registered at Hulimavu Police Station, Bengaluru City, for offence punishable under Section 506 and 498A of IPC and the entire proceedings pending in CC No.6795/2020 before the Court of V ACMM, Bengaluru.

Respondent No.2 is the defacto complainant. She has lodged a complaint against her husband and parents-in-law. Subsequent to registration of the case, petitioner No.1 herein filed M.C. petition in MC No.650/2020 before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. Parties have filed Memorandum of Settlement under Section 89 of CPC r/w Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005. In view of the settlement, Family Court has dissolved the marriage solemnized between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 herein vide order dated 27.9.2024. A copy

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:15317 CRL.P No. 2856 of 2022

of the Memorandum of Settlement filed in MC No.650/2020 before the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru and the proceedings therein has been furnished along with a memo. Clause 7 of the Memorandum of Settlement reads as under:

“In view of the settlement arrived between the parties the petitioner has agreed to co-operate with the respondent and her family members to closure/quashing of the C.C.No.8642/2021 filed under section 499, 506 of IPC pending before the 39^th ACJM., Bengaluru. Likewise the respondent has agreed to co-operate to closure/quashing of the C.C.No.6795/2020 filed under section 498A, 506 of IPC against the petitioner pending on the file of 9^th ACJM., Bengaluru. The respondent has also agreed to withdraw the Crl.Misc.No.56/2020 filed against the petitioner u/s 12 of the DV Act., pending on the V MMTC., Bengaluru.”.

3. Accepting the mediation agreement executed

between the parties, the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.2 solemnized on 30.6.2001 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15317 CRL.P No. 2856 of 2022

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2

has submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties, respondent No.2 has no objection to close the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein.

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and

Others V. State of Punjab and Another 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:(i) to secure the ends of justice; or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It is further held that the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15317 CRL.P No. 2856 of 2022

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

and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the code to quash criminal proceedings, where dispute is of a private nature and the compromise is entered into between the parties.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of

the case, no purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending before the trial Court. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i. Petition is allowed.

ii. The entire proceedings in CC No.6795/2020 pending on the file of the V ACMM, Bengaluru (Cr.No.238/2019 of Hulimavu Police Station) stand quashed.

iii. I.A.No.1/2022 is disposed of.

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

TL / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35