Allowed¶38

Smt. Tamashree Deb v. Mrs. Saraswathi

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2025CRL.P/4450/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru, NC: 2025:KHC:41282; CRL.P No. 4450 of 2023; Oral Order dated 16.10.2025 by Justice M.I. Arun. Quashing of FIR under S.482 CrPC; Crime No.0067/2023, Ss.498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 IPC and S.4 Dowry Prohibition Act 1961; accused (petitioner) not a relative of complainant or her husband; post-FIR compromise and divorce between complainant and husband with her undertaking to withdraw the case and cooperate in quashing; complainant not pursuing the case; HCGP reports no adverse/incriminating material and no objection; FIR quashed qua petitioner only, pending before VI Addl. CMM, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore. No precedents discussed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No.0067/2023 quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner only; the case otherwise remains unaffected. ¶38

Smt. Tamashree Deb Vs Mrs. Saraswathi — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Proceedings in Crime No.0067/2023 quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner only; the case otherwise remains unaffected.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR and proceedings in Crime No.0067/2023 (offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961), pending before the 6th ACMM, Bengaluru, should be quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner, who is not a relative of respondent No.1 or her husband.

¶21

Court's answer

The petitioner is admittedly not related to respondent No.1 or her husband.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

There is already a compromise between respondent No.1 and her husband, pursuant to which respondent No.1 undertook to withdraw the allegations made in Crime No.0067/2023 and cooperate for quashing of the same, even though allegations stand against the petitioner.

¶33

Key takeaways

For these reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.0067/2023, pending on the file of the VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore City, are quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC by a woman arraigned as respondent No.2 in FIR Crime No.0067/2023 (Women Police Station, East Zone, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru), registered on the complaint of respondent No.1 against her husband and associated persons for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 (and 34) IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending before the VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore City. The petitioner was admittedly not a relative of the complainant or her husband. The complainant had since compromised with her husband, obtained a decree of divorce, and in the compromise referred to Crime No.0067/2023 and undertook to withdraw the allegations and cooperate for quashing, though she thereafter failed to attend the Court and is not pursuing the case. The learned HCGP stated on instructions that no adverse/incriminating material was found against the petitioner and raised no objection to quashing qua her. Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the proceedings in Crime No.0067/2023 insofar as they related to the petitioner.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:41282 CRL.P No. 4450 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4450 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. TAMASHREE DEB W/O RAHUL JOHARI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶8

NOW AT R/AT NO 53/41, SUMUKA BUILDING, 22^ND CROSS, HULIMAVU BANGALORE - 560 076

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. RADHIKA M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

MRS. SARASWATHI W/O LOHITH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, NO.31, SHUBA RESIDENCY, FLAT NO.402, 24^TH MAIN ROAD, 4^TH CROSS, JP NAGAR, 7^TH STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 078

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41282 CRL.P No. 4450 of 2023

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

EAST ZONE, SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 070 REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R2 R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.67/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.498A,323,504,506 OF IPC AND SEC.4 OF DP ACT OF WOMEN POLICE STATION, EAST ZONE SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED 6th ACMM, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:41282 CRL.P No. 4450 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The dispute between respondent No.1 and her husband resulted in respondent No.1 making a criminal complaint against her husband and several other persons associated with him and the petitioner herein is one such person. It is submitted that the petitioner is not a relative of respondent No.1 or her husband. It is further submitted that based on the complaint of respondent No.1, an FIR in Crime No.0067/2023 on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore City, came to be registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in which accused No.1 is the husband of respondent No.1 herein and the petitioner herein is made as respondent No.2. It is further submitted that pursuant to filing of the FIR, there has been a compromise between respondent No.1 and her husband, which has resulted in a decree of divorce being

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41282 CRL.P No. 4450 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

granted to them. In the said compromise there is a reference made to Crime No.0067/2023 and respondent No.1 has agreed to withdraw the said petition. However, it is submitted that after obtaining the divorce respondent No.1 has failed to attend the Court and make necessary submissions as per the undertaking given in the mediation proceedings between herself and her husband. It is also submitted that she is not pursuing the said criminal case also.

¶32

The learned High Court Government Pleader, upon instructions, submits that no adverse material has been found against the petitioner herein and that he has no objection for quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.0067/2023, insofar as it relates to the petitioner is concerned.

¶33

Admittedly, the petitioner is not related to respondent No.1 or her husband. There is already a compromise between respondent No.1 and her husband wherein respondent No.1 has undertaken to withdraw the

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41282 CRL.P No. 4450 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

allegations made in Crime No.0067/2023 and cooperate for quashing of the same though there are allegations made against the petitioner herein for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibitions Act, 1961.

¶37

The learned High Court Government Pleader has also submitted that no incriminating material has been found against the petitioner herein.

¶38

For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Petition is hereby allowed . The proceedings in Crime No.0067/2023, pending on the file of the VI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore City is hereby quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner herein is concerned.

¶39

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶40

CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Smt. Tamashree Deb v. Mrs. Saraswathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Tamashree Deb v. Mrs. Saraswathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. D. Chaitra Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Smt Sabah Azeez Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.Santosh Sidha Vs Ms.Rohini Iyengar

Shekar Havanje Vs the State of Karnataka

Athikulla Sharif Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Shahabuddin Vs State of Karnataka