Smt D Keerthana Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, REP. BY HCGP, SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT BUILDING, AT BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15524 CRL.P No. 4140 of 2023

¶16

SMT. DIVYA D C W/O P DIWAKAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶17

SRI. DIWAKAR S/O G PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, APARTMENT 8/5, CLOSE AVENUE, DANDENONG, VICTORIAL-3175, AUSTRALIA.

¶18

BOTH RESPONDENT 2 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SMT. VIJAYA P W/O PRAKASH G, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO.92/15, BASAVA GANGOTHRI, KUMBALAGODU, BENGALURU-560 080.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP FOR R-1; SMT. NAGANANDINI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G. JAIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.7842/2020 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.206/2019, REGISTERED BY RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 420, 471, 465, 468 R/W 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, WHICH IS PENDING CONSIDERATIION ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.

¶22

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

¶23

3 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:15524 CRL.P No. 4140 of 2023

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court

¶28

praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.7842/2020 pending on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru, presently pending before 46^th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶29

Matter arises out of a private complaint filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, which was referred to police for investigation consequent to which FIR in Crime No.206/2019 was registered at Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, for offences punishable under Section 120B, 420, 471, 468 and 465 of IPC. The police have filed charge sheet on completion of investigation.

¶30

A joint affidavit of the parties has been filed, signed by the petitioners as well as the GPA holder representing respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is stated that the

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15524 CRL.P No. 4140 of 2023

¶32

parties have settled all the disputes and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not willing to prosecute the complaint against the petitioners and they have no objection to quash the pending proceedings.

¶33

Petitioners as well as the GPA holder Smt. Vijaya P., of respondent Nos.2 and 3 are present before the Court. Copy of the GPA executed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in favour of Smt.Vijaya P., is also enclosed along with the joint affidavit.

¶34

The joint affidavit of the parties reads as under:

¶35

“We, (1) D Keerthana, D/o. Dayananda G, aged about 34 years, No.17, SubhapradaNilaya, 4^th cross, Javaraiah Garden Extension, Bengaluru560 004, (2) Dayananda G, S/o. Govindaswamy, aged about 69 years, No.17, Subhaprada Nilaya, 4^th Cross, Javaraiah Garden Extension, Bengaluru560 004 and (3) Divya D C, W/o. P Diwakar, aged about 33 years, residing at No. 92/15, Basava Gangothri, Kumbalagodu, Bengaluru 560 080, (4) P Diwakar, S/o. FG Prakash, aged about 40 years, residing at Apartment 8/5, Close Avenue, Dandenong, Victorial- 3175, Australia, both are

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:15524 CRL.P No. 4140 of 2023

¶38

represented by their GPA Holder, Vijaya P, W/o. Prakash G, aged about 57 years, residing at. No. 92/15, Basava Gangothri, Kumbalagodu, Bengaluru- 560 080, do hereby solemnly affirm on oath and state as follows:-

¶39

1. We submit that, First and Second of us are the Petitioners and Third and Fourth of us are the RespondentsNo.2 and 3, respectively, in the above case and as such we know the facts and circumstances of the above case and hence, we are swearing this affidavit

¶40

2. After due discussion and advice of wellwishers, myself and the Petitioners have settled all the disputes and hence I am not willing to continue the case and the Third and Fourth of us have no objection to quash the entire proceedings against the Petitioners.

¶41

3. We, the Second and Third Respondents further state that we were unaware about the ordeal faced by the Petitioners and realized that pending of the proceedings would hamper their future and hence desired to withdraw our allegations made against the Petitioners and close the case on our own will and volition.

¶42

4. We, the Second and Third Respondents further state that since all disputes between us

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15524 CRL.P No. 4140 of 2023

¶44

and Petitioners are settled in full, we are not willing to prosecute our complaint against the Petitioners and have no objection to quash the case in CC No. 7842/2020, registered by Rajarajeshwarinagar Police Station for the offences made penal under Sections 120(B), 420, 471,465, 468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending on the file of the XLVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶45

5. We state that in view of the mutual settlement of all disputes pending between us, we have no grievances or claim against each other in future and we have filed this joint affidavit on our own volition without any coercion or threat, seeking to quash the case in CC No. 7842/2020, registered by Rajarajeshwarinagar Police Station for the offences made penal under Sections 120(B), 420, 471, 465, 468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending on the file of the XLVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶46

6. We state that we have no further claims and counter claims on each other as all disputes and claims are settled in full and final.”

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15524 CRL.P No. 4140 of 2023

¶48

6. In Ramagopal and another v. State of

¶49

Madhya Pradesh – AIR 2022 (14) SCC 531, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that notwithstanding the limitations provided under Section 320 Cr.P.C., this Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the criminal proceedings initiated even for the noncompoundable offences, taking into consideration the gravity of offence and the nature of settlement between the parties.

¶50

Considering that the dispute is purely private in

¶51

nature and since no purpose will be served keeping the proceedings pending before the trial Court in view of the settlement arrived between the parties, it is just and appropriate to quash the proceedings, in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

Petition is allowed.

¶54

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15524 CRL.P No. 4140 of 2023

¶55

The entire proceedings in C.C.No.7842/2020 now pending before the 46^th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru as against the petitioners stand quashed.

¶56

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶57

HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34.1 CT:ar

Smt D Keerthana v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt D Keerthana v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey Vs State of Karnataka

Mallappa @ B Mallappa Vs State by

Rohith Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Imran @ Mohammed Imran Vs the State

K.M. Mahadevaswamy Vs State by Srirampura P.S

Bommanahalli Babu @ P S Ayub Vs State by Kyathasandra P S