Sri Prashanth Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. PRASHANTH, S/O SRI. CHENGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF CHIKKAKANAGALU VILLAGE, ALUR SIDDAPUR POST, SHANIWARSANTHE HOBLI, SOMAWARPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 235.

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI. CHENGAPPA S/O LATE BOPAYYA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF CHIKKAKANAGALU VILLAGE, ALUR SIDDAPUR POST, SHANIWARSANTHE HOBLI, SOMAWARPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 235.

¶13

SMT. RUKMINI, W/O CHENGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, PWERMANENT RESIDENT OF CHIKKAKANAGALU VILLAGE, ALUR SIDDAPUR POST,

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14965 CRL.P No. 5246 of 2020

¶15

SHANIWARSANTHE HOBLI, SOMAWARPETE TALUK,

¶16

KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 235.

¶17

MS. PAVITRA, D/O SRI. CHENGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF CHIKKAKANAGALU VILLAGE, ALUR SIDDAPUR POST, SHANIWARSANTHE HOBLI, SOMAWARPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 235.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. N. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SHANIVARASANTE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶22

SMT. POORNIMA C.P, W/O PRASHANTH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, WPHC OF SHNIVARSANTE TOWN, KODAGU, KARNATAKA - 571 235.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. RAJATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.S. CHANDRAMOULI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14965 CRL.P No. 5246 of 2020

¶26

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.98/2020 OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SOMAWARPETE, KODAGU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 181, 182, 200, 312, 323, 353, 465, 469, 500, 506, 509 R/W 34 OF IPC VIDE ANNEXUREA AND B.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR and complaint in Crime No.98/2020 registered at Shanivarasanthe Police Station, Kodagu for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 181, 182, 200, 312, 323, 353, 465, 469, 500, 506, 509 read with 34 of IPC.

¶31

The above case was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by respondent No.2, which was referred to police for investigation.

¶32

The matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute. Respondent No.2 is none other than the wife of petitioner

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14965 CRL.P No. 5246 of 2020

¶34

No.1. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the parents and sister of petitioner No.1. It is submitted that a complaint was also lodged by petitioner No.1 against respondent No.2, which was registered in Crime No.13/2020 of the very same police station for offences punishable under Section 417, 504 and 506 read with 149 of IPC against respondent No.2 and others. However, B-report was filed in the said case.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing on both the sides would submit that the parties have settled the dispute and therefore, respondent No.2 is not interested in proceeding with the matter.

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed a memo stating that the petition may be allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner may be quashed.

¶37

Memo filed by the learned counsel is placed on

¶38

record.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14965 CRL.P No. 5246 of 2020

¶40

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and

¶41

Others V. State of Punjab and Another reported in

¶42

(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. Further, 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.

¶43

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.

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14965 CRL.P No. 5246 of 2020

¶45

In view of the settlement, no purpose will be

¶46

served in continuing the proceedings pending against the petitioners. Hence, to meet the ends of justice, it is necessary to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. Petition is allowed .

¶49

ii. The FIR and complaint registered in Crime No.98/2020 of Shanivarasanthe Police Station, Kodagu and the consequent proceedings pending on the file of Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Somawarpet, Kodagu are quashed.

¶50

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶51

PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT: BHK

Sri Prashanth v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prashanth 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

Sri. O R Akshay Vs the State of Karnataka

Gowrish B. Sugur Vs the Station House Officer

Shivakumar. N Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Jay Ramani Vs State of Karnataka

Smt N Manjula Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Subramanya v Vs Renuka Nayak H