Allowed¶44

Sri. Rakesh. K v. State by

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2025CRL.P/4697/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR; Crime No.505/2021 Madanayakanahalli Police Station; offences under Sections 498A, 504 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act 1961; matrimonial dispute settled through mediation in M.C.No.802/2023; joint compounding application by parties; B.S.Joshi v State of Haryana 2003(4) SCC 675 relied upon — Section 320 does not limit Section 482 power to quash; permanent alimony Rs.4,75,000/- (Rs.3,75,000/- paid, balance Rs.1,00,000/- by DD No.770372 dated 27.02.2025); proceeding pending before Additional Civil Judge (JD) and JMFC Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural; petition allowed, proceeding quashed.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceeding arising out of Crime No.505/2021 of Madanayakanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru District quashed; I.A.No.1/2023 disposed of as not surviving for consideration.

Sri. Rakesh. K Vs State by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Entire proceeding arising out of Crime No.505/2021 of Madanayakanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru District quashed; I.A.No.1/2023 disposed of as not surviving for consideration.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceeding arising out of Crime No.505/2021 (a matrimonial dispute; Ss.498A, 504 r/w 34 IPC and Ss.3 & 4 DP Act) ought to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC in view of the settlement between the parties.

¶25

Court's answer

The matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute; in view of the settlement having taken place, no purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners, and to meet the ends of justice the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the entire proceeding arising out of Crime No.505/2021 registered in Madanayakanahally Police Station, Bengaluru District is hereby quashed; I.A.No.1/2023 does not survive and is disposed of.

¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Mohammad Nawaz, J.), CRL.P No. 4697 of 2022, decided 04-03-2025 — Petition under S.482 CrPC by a husband and his parents to quash the FIR/proceeding in Crime No.505/2021 dated 24.10.2021 of Madanayakanahalli Police Station (offences under Ss.498A, 504 r/w 34 IPC and Ss.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) registered on the complaint of the wife (respondent No.2), pending before Additional Civil Judge (JD) and JMFC, Nelamangala. The matrimonial dispute stood settled through mediation in M.C.No.802/2023: petitioner No.1 agreed to pay Rs.4,75,000/- permanent alimony, Rs.3,75,000/- already paid, and the balance Rs.1,00,000/- was remitted by Demand Draft No.770372 dated 27.02.2025 handed over to respondent No.2 in court. Relying on B.S.Joshi and Ors. vs State of Harayana and Anr, 2003(4) SCC 675, the Court held that in a settled matrimonial dispute no purpose is served in continuing the criminal proceeding; the entire proceeding in Crime No.505/2021 was quashed and the Criminal Petition allowed, with I.A.No.1/2023 disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9125 CRL.P No. 4697 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4697 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. RAKESH. K, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O. SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY. B. N.,

¶8

SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY. B. N. AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O. SRI. NANJUNDAIAH,

¶9

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SMT. POORNIMA G. S. AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O. KESHAVA MURTHY. B. N., ALL ARE R/O. NO. 2392/A, 10^TH MAIN, E BLOCK, NEAR EAST WEST SCHOOL, 2^ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 021.

¶11

(BY SRI M B RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶15

SMT. KRUTHIKA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, W/O. RAKESH. K, D/O. LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:9125 CRL.P No. 4697 of 2022

¶18

R/O. TOTADAGODDA HALLI GRAMA NAGASANDRA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 073.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1, SRI NARENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING FIR IN CRIME NO.505/2021 DATED 24.10.2021 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 498A,504,34 OF IPC AND R/W SEC 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT, OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT/MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION, NELAMANGALA, BEGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU AND ALSO PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AND JMFC COURT NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL BENGALURU.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.505/2021 of Madanayakanahally Police Station, Bengaluru District is sought to be quashed in this petition.

¶26

On the basis of a complaint lodged by respondent No.2, the aforementioned case was registered against her husband and parents-in-law for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:9125 CRL.P No. 4697 of 2022

¶29

An application under Section 482 of Code of

¶30

Criminal Procedure is filed signed by the petitioners as well as respondent No.2, seeking permission of the Court to compound the matter.

¶31

It is stated that M.C.No.802/2023 filed by petitioner No.1 against respondent No.2 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District seeking divorce was referred to Mediation Centre, Bangalore and the matter got settled, wherein petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay Rs.4,75,000/- towards permanent alimony to respondent No.2. It is also submitted that he has already paid a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been agreed to be paid after disposal of the present petition.

¶32

I have perused the order passed in M.C.No.802/2023, wherein the learned Judge has accepted the Memorandum of Settlement filed by the parties and closed the said case in view of the Mediation report.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:9125 CRL.P No. 4697 of 2022

¶35

6. As per Memorandum of Settlement, the balance

¶36

of Rs.1,00,000/- was agreed to be paid by way of Demand Draft after quashing of the present petition.

¶37

The petitioners as well as respondent No.2 are present before the Court. The Demand Draft bearing No.770372, dated 27.02.2025 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/drawn in favour of respondent No.2-Kruthika, has been handed over to respondent No.2.

¶38

8. In B.S.Joshi and Ors. vs State of Harayana

¶39

and Anr .¹ , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

¶40

The matter arises out of matrimonial dispute. In view of the settlement having taken place, no purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceeding initiated against

¶41

1 2003(4) SCC 675

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9125 CRL.P No. 4697 of 2022

¶43

the petitioners. Hence, to meet the ends of justice, the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.

¶44

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed . The entire proceeding arising out of Crime No.505/2021 registered in Madanayakanahally Police Station, Bengaluru District is hereby quashed.

¶45

I.A.No.1/2023 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.

¶46

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶47

GVP

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Sri. Rakesh. K v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Rakesh. K v. State by

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

Mrs. Vanitha Babu Vs Mr. M. Krishnakumar

Srinivasa Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Palanisamy Selvaraj Vs Parijatha Traders

Sri Nishant Sheoran Vs State by Karnataka

M/S Pavithra Hardware and Electricals Vs M/S Gulshan Trading Company

Smt. Eramma Vs State by Regional Transport Officer