Sri. Allan Maxi Andrews Vs State by Banaswadi

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.53774/2022 ANNEUXRE-A ON THE FILE OF THE XI A.C.M.M, AT BENGALURU DATED 02.06.2022 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 354A R/W 34 OF IPC OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT / BANASWADI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:9376 CRL.P No. 5825 of 2022

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.53774/2022 pending on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bengaluru, against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354-A r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

¶23

Respondent No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1. A private complaint was filed by respondent No.2 against accused Nos.1 to 8, which was referred to police for investigation and a case in Crime No.47/2022 was registered at Banaswadi Police Station, Bengaluru City, for offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 498-A, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act’). After investigation, police filed chargesheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354-A r/w. 34 of IPC.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the parties have filed a joint memo, signed by the petitioners and respondent No.2.

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:9376 CRL.P No. 5825 of 2022

¶27

It is stated that parties have amicably settled their family disputes and the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, has granted decree of divorce. In terms of the said decree, a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- has been paid to respondent No.2 towards permanent alimony towards full and final settlement.

¶28

Along with the joint memo, Memorandum of Settlement filed before the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in M.C.No.5143/2022 under Section 89 of CPC read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) rules, 2005 has also been filed. Para 6 of the Memorandum of Settlement reads as under:

¶29

“6) The respondent agreed not to pursue C.C. 53774/2022 which is pending on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru against petitioner and his father.”

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2

¶31

would submit that respondent No.2/complainant has no objection to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners, in view of the settlement that has taken place.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:9376 CRL.P No. 5825 of 2022

¶34

In B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana

¶35

and Another¹ , the 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, High Court can quash criminal proceedings and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

¶36

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh And Others vs. State of Punjab² has held that when the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis, a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to i) secure ends of justice, or ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It is further held that the criminal cases having overwhelming 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.

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:9376 CRL.P No. 5825 of 2022

¶39

The matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute. In

¶40

view of the settlement having taken place between the parties, no purpose would be served in keeping criminal proceedings against petitioners pending. To meet the ends of justice, it is just and necessary to quash the proceedings. Hence, the following:-

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶43

(ii) The entire proceeding in C.C.No.53774/2022 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bengaluru is quashed.

¶44

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶45

Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri. Allan Maxi Andrews v. State by Banaswadi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Allan Maxi Andrews v. State by Banaswadi

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 Nishant Sheoran Vs State by Karnataka

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

Sri. Rakesh. K Vs State by

Sri Madan Annasaheb Mirajkar @ Madan Mirazkar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr,. Thippeswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Nikhil Jain Vs State by