Mr Mahender Daga Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

Mr Mahender Daga Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All three criminal petitions allowed. Criminal proceedings in crime No.33/2022 of Mico Layout Police Station quashed against the petitioners in Crl.P.No.2979/2022 and Crl.P.No.3022/2022; criminal proceedings in crime No.1/2019 of T.Nagar Police, Chennai (C.C.No.8494/2023) quashed against accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.P.No.11469/2023. Pending IAs do not survive for consideration.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners — arising out of crime No.33/2022 of Mico Layout Police (Crl.P.No.2979/2022 and Crl.P.No.3022/2022) and out of crime No.1/2019 / C.C.No.8494/2023 registered by T.Nagar police, Chennai, and transferred to Bengaluru (Crl.P.No.11469/2023) — ought to be quashed in view of the settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties in the matrimonial proceedings.

Court's answer

In view of the settlement between the parties in the Family Court — whereby respondent No.2 agreed to withdraw all complaints and cases against the petitioners (husband and in-laws) and the allegations made by the petitioners against respondent No.2 were also withdrawn — keeping the criminal petitions pending against all four accused persons before the trial court is an abuse of process of law, and the petitions are liable to be quashed.

Ratio / Principle

All three petitions are allowed; the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.P.No.2979/2022 and Crl.P.No.3022/2022, arising out of crime No.33/2022 registered by Mico Layout Police Station, are hereby quashed.

Key takeaways

The criminal proceedings against accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.P.No.11469/2023, arising out of crime No.1/2019 registered by the T.Nagar police, Chennai, are likewise hereby quashed.ratio¶80

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Three connected Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing petitions, High Court of Karnataka (K. Natarajan, J.), decided 17.04.2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:16041). Crl.P.No.2979/2022 (Suruchi Daga Saboo, said to be the sister-in-law) and Crl.P.No.3022/2022 (Mahender Daga, elder brother of the father-in-law) sought quashing of FIR crime No.33/2022 of Mico Layout P.S., Bengaluru, arising from respondent No.2 Ritu Maheshwari's private complaint PCR.No.3651/2022 under Sections 319, 351, 424, 379 and 498A IPC, pending before VI Addl. CMM, Bengaluru. Crl.P.No.11469/2023 (Anirudh Daga, husband, and Santosh Daga, mother-in-law) sought quashing of C.C.No.8494/2023 before III Addl. CMM, Bengaluru, arising from crime No.1/2019 of T.Nagar P.S., Chennai (Sections 498A, 406, 323 IPC), transferred to Bengaluru by the Supreme Court vide Transfer Petition No.319/2021. During pendency, divorce suit MC.No.5433/2019 (Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act) was settled at the Bengaluru Mediation Centre and divorce decreed on 23.08.2023; under the compromise terms respondent No.2 undertook to withdraw all cases and received permanent alimony. Holding continuance of the criminal proceedings against all four accused to be an abuse of process of law, the Court allowed all three petitions and quashed the criminal proceedings in both crimes; pending IAs do not survive.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Criminal proceedings challenged: (i) FIR in crime No.33/2022 of Mico Layout Police arising out of PCR.No.3651/2022 pending before VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (quashing sought in Crl.P.No.2979/2022 and Crl.P.No.3022/2022); (ii) charge sheet, FIR and complaint in C.C.No.8494/2023 before III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, arising out of crime No.1/2019 registered by T.Nagar Police, Chennai and transferred to Bengaluru by the Supreme Court (quashing sought in Crl.P.No.11469/2023).¶59
VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru; III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru
Prior proceeding
Complainant (respondent No.2) alleged demand for dowry and harassment by the in-laws at and after marriage; she filed a complaint at Chennai Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC, and FIR was registered by the Chennai police.¶65
Prior proceeding
In crime No.1/2019 the charge sheet was filed by T.Nagar police, Chennai; the case was transferred to Bengaluru by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Transfer Petition No.319/2021.¶60
Prior proceeding
State representation in the transferred case stood changed from Metropolitan Magistrate XVIII, Saidapet, Chennai to the State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru, vide order dated 10-01-2023.¶50
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint in PCR.No.3651/2022 against the sister-in-law and the elder brother of her father-in-law.¶67
Prior proceeding
The private complaint was referred to the police; Mico Layout police registered FIR in crime No.33/2022 and investigation was pending at the time of filing the petitions.¶67
Prior proceeding
During pendency, accused No.1 (husband of respondent No.2) filed matrimonial case MC.No.5433/2019 before the Family Court, Bengaluru, for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.¶68
Prior proceeding
MC.No.5433/2019 was referred to the Bengaluru Mediation Centre, the matter was settled between the parties, and divorce was granted by the Family Court, Bengaluru, on 23.08.2023.¶68
Prior proceeding
Per the terms of the compromise, the parties agreed to close, quash or withdraw all pending cases not specifically mentioned in the compromise, and respondent No.2 agreed to withdraw all cases filed against the husband and in-laws.¶69
Prior proceeding
The compromise was accepted by the Family Court, which decreed the matrimonial case by granting a decree; respondent No.2 gave an undertaking before the Family Court and Mediation Centre to withdraw all cases.¶71
Prior proceeding
Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the matter between the parties stands settled in the Family Court, she has received permanent alimony and is now studying in a foreign country.¶73